The hobbit ( Homo floresiensis) is very small - as it's name suggests - which is odd for a species of human. It also has traits seen in hominins millions of years old but lived recently (only ~12,000 years ago). Which is also odd.
This strangeness led to a debate over just what the hobbit is. Could it be a weird offshoot of our family, or is it something a bit more boring? Like a diseased modern human.
Actually, when I say "debate" it's actually just a handful of people yelling really loudly that the hobbit is a modern human ( and using rather nefarious tricks to get their yelling published). Most scientists accept that it's actually a separate species.
Now another piece of research in favour of the "separate species" idea has been published. Hopefully this will end this faux debate once and for all.
New evidence for a separate species
This new evidence comes from an examination of the hobbits' skull. An examination of the thickness of the cranium revealed it inconsistent with it being a modern human.
Modern humans have a rather unique skull, complete with a chin and forehead seen in no other species. As well as general differences in shape, the thickness of some of these bones is also unique (sometimes the unique shapes themselves being produced by changes in the thickness in bone). Our ancestor Homo erectus has a different pattern of skull thickness.
In all modern humans that have ever been studied the Homo erectus pattern of bone thickness has never been observed. And vice versa for the modern human pattern. Varying patterns of skull thickness is a clear way to separate these two species (albeit an obscure one).
So this research carried out a very complex analysis with a relatively simple goal. They used CT scans to examine a Homo floresiensis skull in minute detail to answer the question: does it fall into the modern human camp or the Homo erectus camp?
The results showed that the hobbit has the Homo erectus pattern. This doesn't mean it was actually a Homo erectus. Rather, it proves it wasn't human.
As an interesting aside, this analysis also found evidence of a scar on the front of the skull. It was healed and seems to have no negative impact on this particular hobbit, but it's clear they probably weren't living an idyllic existence that shunned all adventuring.
Could it be a disease?
Of course, since people are claiming that the hobbit was just a human with a disease could that also explain this skull thickness?
To test this idea the researchers also examined the skull thickness of several individuals with various conditions, including microcephaly (one of the most commonly cited diseases that could "explain" the hobbit). Sure enough, they found a different pattern of skull thickness in these individuals; more similar to the modern human skull.
Perhaps more interestingly, they found that the distribution of skull thickness in the individuals with these conditions was a bit "off". They weren't as symmetrical as the non-pathological modern humans. In other words, these developmental conditions also seem to have influenced the development of skull thickness.
Which sounds kind of obvious, until you note that the hobbit did have a symmetrical pattern of skull thickness. In other words, they were completely healthy (apart from the aforementioned blow to the head). Not only are they not a diseased modern human, they aren't a diseased Homo erectus either.
As well as rubbishing the idea that Homo floresiensis was a diseased human, this research also gives creationists a nice kick in the groin too. The extra detail provided by this analysis confirms that the bones are actually fossilised. As recent as the hobbit lived in terms of human evolution, they weren't alive recent enough to confirm creationism.
Add it to the pile
There is actually a very real debate going about the hobbit. People want to know just where it fits into the human family tree.
Was it a descendant of Homo erectus, like us, or their cousin? Or maybe something entirely different? There's evidence hinting in all these directions and we don't have a clue as to what the actual answer is.
Unfortunately this new research doesn't help resolve this question. It's a fascinating paper, but isn't focused on the "real" debate because the fake debate has to be shut down. Despite the fact there's already a mountain of evidence for the fact that the hobbit isn't a modern human.
And yet here we are still talking about it because a vocal minority keeps bringing it up. My eyes are rolling so hard right now.
tl;dr
The hobbit is definitely a different species of human. We knew that already, but some people refused to accept it. Hopefully now they will.
References
Argue, D., Morwood, M.J., Sutikna, T. and Saptomo, E.W., 2009. Homo floresiensis: a cladistic analysis. Journal of human evolution, 57(5), pp.623-639.
Balzeau, A. and Charlier, P., 2016. What do cranial bones of LB1 tell us about Homo floresiensis?. Journal of Human Evolution, 93, pp.12-24.
de Pinillos, M.M., Martinón-Torres, M., Martín-Francés, L., Arsuaga, J.L. and de Castro, J.M.B., 2015. Comparative analysis of the trigonid crests patterns in Homo antecessor molars at the enamel and dentine surfaces. Quaternary International.
