Concept explainers
Videos
Do you think the skeletons of Liang Bua Cave should be called a new species? Does it matter?
To review:
The consideration one would make while placing the skeleton from the Liang Bua cave in a different species and the reason for the necessity of the distinction.
Introduction:
Skeletons of fourteen prehistoric hominids were discovered in a cave called Liang Bua in 2004, named LB 1 to 14. These skeletons resemble the genus Australopithecus but also has similarities to the Homo species. They were classified as new species and named Homo floresiensis. However, some scientists argue that these specimens do not represent new species and are related to Homo sapiens.
Explanation of Solution
The prominent argument against accepting LB1 as another species was that the brain size was smaller than the modern humans. In case, they were different species evolved from H. erectus, their brain size should not have been affected. However, there are other factors to be considered. The factors that help in defining LB1 as different species are as follows:
1. Facial characteristics like heavy brow ridges, sloping forehead, and small chin are distinctive. The shape of the LB1 wrist resembled H. habilis (homo), which was necessary for absorbing the impact of shock and provide stability while using heavy tools. H. habilis is extinct for 1.6 million years.
2. The toes are short and in line like humans. The foot lacks arch is longer in proportion to the human foot. So their gait was high-stepping and running was poor. So, it is estimated that the LB1 evolved from H. erectus and diverged from the line of evolution that gave rise to modern humans.
3. LB1 skeletons were found in a cave with other skeletons of same characteristics, some tools, and skeleton of Stegodon, a small relative of modern elephants. This means the LBs could use tools, hunt and had coordination abilities that facilitate a hunt and interaction within the group. Their brain size may be small, but they could accomplish such tasks.
When all this information is taken into account, it can be safely estimated that LB1 represents a different species. Differentiating LB1 as a different species is very important. Some of the arguments to support the necessity of this distinction are as follows:
1. Naming LB1 as a different species showed that just the brain size is not an indicator of the difference in species. The coordination of different LB individual has overcome challenges from reduced brain size.
2. Naming LB1 as a different species paved a way for taking entire characteristics of the specimen before differentiating it into one species or another.
3. Evidence suggests the species had a larger brain before migrating to the island. So it will be worth finding whether the brain size was reduced as an evolutionary measure. The differentiation established an offshoot of H. erectus survived for a long period and may have interacted with the H. sapiens.
Therefore, based on all the information available on the LB1 skeleton, they do represent a different species. This distinction is necessary as it proved brain size is not the only indicator in the differentiating between different species.
Want to see more full solutions like this?
Chapter 22 Solutions
Human Biology: Concepts and Current Issues - With Access (Custom)
- Price of visit Number of visits $700 0 $600 [1 $500 2 $400 3 $300 4 00000 The Table blow gives the demand curve for doctor visits for Elena. If the price of a doctor's visit is $600, and Elena does not have health insurance, she will visit the doctor times. If Elena obtains 50% coinsurance (the company pays 50% of the medical bill, Elena pays 50%), then Elena will visit the doctor times. 1; 2 0; 3 0; 2 1;4 2; 1arrow_forwardP 200 150- 100 50 w/instrance/ w/insurance 2 100 Demand Assume that the white curve (labeled "Demand") represents an individual's true demand for this particular health care service. The coinsurance associated with insurance option 1 (in blue) is likely _. 0000 100% 25% 50% 0%arrow_forwardUse the figure below. Bob and Nancy have the same income and total utility.. willingness to pay for an insurance premium will be lower than because they are. risk- averse. Total utility Current utility Bob's utility Nancy's utility 0000 Bob; Nancy; less Nancy; Bob; less Nancy; Bob; more Bob; Nancy; more Current Income incomearrow_forward
- Consider the figure below. Suppose the true price of a health care service is P1. Suppose further that the individual has obtained insurance that has a fixed copayment for this particular service. The copayment is represented by price P2. represents the quantity of the service the individual would consume without insurance. quantity of the service the individual would consume with the insurance. Health Care Service represents the P. P₂ a Q1;Q2 Q2; Q3 Q1; Q3 Q3; Q1 Q2; Q1 फ f Q ८ g d h Q3\D 7Q 00000arrow_forwardThe table shows the utility Jordan receives at various income levels, but they do not know what their income will be next year. There is a 15% chance their income will be $25,000, a 20% chance their income will be $35,000, and a 65% chance their income will be $45,000. We know that Jordan is Income $25,000 Utility 2,800 30,000 3,200 35,000 3,500 40,000 3,700 45,000 3,800 ☐ none of the above 0 000 risk taker (lover) because their marginal utility of income is increasing risk neutral because their marginal utility of income is constant risk averse because their marginal utility of income is decreasing risk neutral because their marginal utility of income is decreasingarrow_forwardOOOO a d+e d a+b+c Consider the figure below. Suppose the true price of a health care service is P1. Suppose further that the individual has obtained insurance that has a fixed copayment for this particular service. The copayment is represented by price P2. The social loss from moral hazard if the individual has copayment P2 is represented graphically by the area(s): Health Care Service P. a No 4 ८ e g Q2 Q3 Darrow_forward
- OOO O The table shows the utility Jordan receives at various income levels, but they do not know what their income will be next year. There is a 15% chance their income will be $25,000, a 20% chance their income will be $35,000, and a 65% chance their income will be $45,000. We know that Jordan's expected income is. Their utility from their expected income is_ Income $25,000 Utility 2,800 30,000 3,200 35,000 3,500 40,000 3,700 45,000 3,800 $45,000; 3,800 $40,000; 3,700 $25,000; 2,800 $35,000; 3,500 $30,000; 3,200arrow_forwardQuestion 1 Classify the Bird Mark 7; how is it: Powered Triggered Cycled Classify brid mark 7 Powered: By gas (oxygen) Triggered: Negative Pressure, caused by the patient’s inspiratory effort Cycled: The machine stops delivering gas and allows for exhalationarrow_forwardHypothetical "pedigree" for Sickle Cellarrow_forward
- would this be considered a novel protein and if not how can I fix it so it is and can you draw the corrections pleasearrow_forwardIn as much detail as possible, hand draw a schematic diagram of the hypothalamic-pituitary- gonad (HPG) axis in the human male. Be sure to include all the relevant structures and hormones. You must define all abbreviations the first time you use them. Please include (and explain) the feedback loops.arrow_forwardA negligence action was brought by a mother against a hospital on behalf of her minor daughter. It alleged that when the mother was 13 years of age, the hospital negligently transfused her with Rh-positive blood. The mother's Rh-negative blood was incompatible with and sensitized by the Rh-positive blood. The mother discovered her condition 8 years later during a routine blood screening ordered by her healthcare provider in the course of prenatal care. The resulting sensitization of the mother's blood allegedly caused damage to the fetus, resulting in physical defects and premature birth. Did a patient relationship with the transfusing hospital exist?arrow_forward
Biology: The Dynamic Science (MindTap Course List)BiologyISBN:9781305389892Author:Peter J. Russell, Paul E. Hertz, Beverly McMillanPublisher:Cengage Learning
Concepts of BiologyBiologyISBN:9781938168116Author:Samantha Fowler, Rebecca Roush, James WisePublisher:OpenStax College
Biology Today and Tomorrow without Physiology (Mi...BiologyISBN:9781305117396Author:Cecie Starr, Christine Evers, Lisa StarrPublisher:Cengage Learning
Biology (MindTap Course List)BiologyISBN:9781337392938Author:Eldra Solomon, Charles Martin, Diana W. Martin, Linda R. BergPublisher:Cengage Learning
Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life (MindTap...BiologyISBN:9781337408332Author:Cecie Starr, Ralph Taggart, Christine Evers, Lisa StarrPublisher:Cengage Learning