Was just reading an ABC science report where there's still a debate going on as to whether its a new species a or a genetic malformation due to interbreeding. So nothing definite yet it seems. http://abcmail.net.au/t/464111/684658/9415/0/
I know I am partisan about this, but the opposition to the 'separate species' conclusion is incredibly weak. Both opposing theories ignore much of the evidence and then get wrong the bits they focus on.
The two alternate theories are 1) island dwarfing (a well known biogeographical process) or 2) a development abnormality - microencephalitis. However if you take a normal human brain and shrink it you do not get the hobbit's brain. Similarly a microencephalitic brain does not resemble the hobbit's brain. The brain of Homo floresiensis has a different structure to either normal or deformed humans. Significantly for such a small brain it has well developed folds in the frontal lobes - more than for other small primates.
Furthermore, neither theory addresses the other anatomical differences. There are numerous archain features that are similar to Homohabilis or even Austropithicus (the BBC got it wrong when they likened it to H. erectus). These are seen in the teeth, shoulders, wrists, hips and feet (at least). Neither dwarfing nor disease can account for this.
I think we should be glad that the world is still that little bit more strange and complex than we know.
I often wonder how future anthropologists will view the present epoch, through this sort of looking glass. For instance will they see the Australian Rugby fan as a different sort of hominid species, and politicians, real estate agents, and so on (no no, don't report me, just joking, but do you see what I mean)?
We are looking at physical and environmental factors now, in assessing the Hobbits. I am rather intrigued as to whether our descendents may develop other classifiers for us, such as perhaps homo dubya?
