flores man...please be real

[puleeze]

I’m too new to post links or pictures yet, but does anyone out there have information on the somewhat recently discovered “flores man?” Apparently, he was most closely related to homo erectus, was 3 feet tall and hunted dwarf elephants and giant rats. Also, there is a local mythology that as late as the 1700’s there were accounts of “little men” who would steal babies from villages. There are even some who believe there may be an extant group living on the island of Sumatra today. This is all too good to be true, and the temptation to fall under the spell of wishful thinking is mighty strong in this case. Well, it’s just that if I were to arrange a widespread evolutionary hoax, this would be it. dwarf elephants and giant rats…please god let it be true.

[petre]

From the all-powerful wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flores

In September 2003, at Liang Bua Cave in western Flores, paleoanthropologists discovered skeletons of a previously unknown hominid species. Homo floresiensis, affectionately termed hobbits, appear to be miniaturized versions of Homo erectus standing about one metre tall. They may have existed until as recently as 11,000 BC. Local reports of elf-like people, the Ebu Gogo, or the Orang Pendek of Sumatra, have caused speculation that Flores man may have survived into the historical period, or even to the present. The discovery has been published in the October 28, 2004 issue of Nature magazine.

[PatKelley]

Almost missed that Giant Rat of Sumatra reference! While the idea of dwarfism on islands being a survival trait is valid, and is shown in such examples as dwarf elephants, flores man represents a conundrum. It is disturbing in multiple respects; it pushes hominid lines into possible contact in relatively recent history, it raises the specter that the all-powerful hominid was still very much at the mercy of natural selection which by extension could include us, and finally it represents the possiblity of a living "missing link."

The last is purely speculative, and the stories of Orang Pendek and the others, while they might represent contact, they might also represent local explanations for finds of other skeletons or remains in areas more habitable than the caves when the first humans arrived. Wildmen, often included with the idea of ancestors returning as spirits in predatory animals, is a theme which occurs again and again in human cultures.

A nice idea, should it be feasable, would be to set up camera traps (http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FTRO%2FTRO21_01%2FS02664674040 01956a.pdf&code=feeb63ce6ff2b82cbe3d4e84592ebdd3). As technology advances, camera traps could be made to be self-recharging, CCD-based, and connected with enough of a processor to allow picture transmission and command reception via satellite. In other words, nearly autonomous. As the potential area is jungle terrain that could benefit from more comprehensive fauna surveys to establish biodiversity and population, the hunt for an Orang Pendek could be secondary.

[William Parcher]

PatKelley, I think that the recent fossil findings on Sumatra that have been designated as Homo floresiensis and the local culturally-described creature known as Orang Pendak must be conceptualized as two different things... until further notice.

H. floresiensis is really only known from these new fossil remains that have allowed anthropologists to give these artifacts a unique and provisionary species status as a previously-undescribed and unknown hominid.

Orang Pendak (OP) must be regarded as a different 'ball of wax', until further notice. This creature is said to be a smallish bipedal primate that is occasionally seen by the natives of some areas on Sumatra. OP is 'supposed' to be living on Sumatra RIGHT NOW. The evidence for OP is largely anecdotal from these natives, but there are claims of found physical evidence... both by the natives and of Western researchers. The evidence seems to be that of footprint tracks, hairs and possibly dung.

The presented evidence seems to show something rather bizarre. The presented footprints show a rather classic modern ape form (big toe is far offset and opposing the other toes), though it is smaller than a typical orangutan which is a known ape on Sumatra.

I will boldly offer my tentative opinion that Orang Pendak is a mythological creature on Sumatra and that the found physical evidence is either hoaxed or mistaken.

The cultural parallels of OP and Bigfoot are profound.

For whatever reasons, there are factions of Western culture that think that aboriginal, native and 'local' people are incapable (or unwilling) of ********tery and simply being mistaken about nature. If cultural anthropology has taught us anything, we have learned that humans lie and are mistaken about things no matter how removed they are from the modern global human realm. I think it is no accident that the active researchers studying the 'creature' known as Orang Pendak are coming from the secular and amateur special-interest group commonly known as cryptozoology. Expect hoaxing and aggrandizements of nothingness.

[tracer]

The last is purely speculative, and the stories of Orang Pendek and the others, while they might represent contact, they might also represent local explanations for finds of other skeletons or remains in areas more habitable than the caves when the first humans arrived. Wildmen, often included with the idea of ancestors returning as spirits in predatory animals, is a theme which occurs again and again in human cultures.
As is the theme of miniature people living in the wilderness (c.f. leprechauns, faeries, elves, etc.). Who knows? The legends could've simply gotten started because somebody saw a group of little kids moving through the brush playing hide-and-seek, and jumped to an audacious conclusion.

[PatKelley]

PatKelley, I think that the recent fossil findings on Sumatra that have been designated as Homo floresiensis and the local culturally-described creature known as Orang Pendak must be conceptualized as two different things... until further notice.

H. floresiensis is really only known from these new fossil remains that have allowed anthropologists to give these artifacts a unique and provisionary species status as a previously-undescribed and unknown hominid.

Orang Pendak (OP) must be regarded as a different 'ball of wax', until further notice. This creature is said to be a smallish bipedal primate that is occasionally seen by the natives of some areas on Sumatra. OP is 'supposed' to be living on Sumatra RIGHT NOW. The evidence for OP is largely anecdotal from these natives, but there are claims of found physical evidence... both by the natives and of Western researchers. The evidence seems to be that of footprint tracks, hairs and possibly dung.

The presented evidence seems to show something rather bizarre. The presented footprints show a rather classic modern ape form (big toe is far offset and opposing the other toes), though it is smaller than a typical orangutan which is a known ape on Sumatra.

I will boldly offer my tentative opinion that Orang Pendak is a mythological creature on Sumatra and that the found physical evidence is either hoaxed or mistaken.

The cultural parallels of OP and Bigfoot are profound.

For whatever reasons, there are factions of Western culture that think that aboriginal, native and 'local' people are incapable (or unwilling) of ********tery and simply being mistaken about nature. If cultural anthropology has taught us anything, we have learned that humans lie and are mistaken about things no matter how removed they are from the modern global human realm. I think it is no accident that the active researchers studying the 'creature' known as Orang Pendak are coming from the secular and amateur special-interest group commonly known as cryptozoology. Expect hoaxing and aggrandizements of nothingness.

Sure, and I don't disagree. I'm curious myself to see more of the skeletal remains, more of the reconstruction work before drawing any conclusions about possible relationships. Although I bet a lot of people would sell their eye teeth to have a bipedal giant hominid skeleton found...

I'm interested in the camera trap technology for its own sake too, and with technology improving it would be nice to do research remotely in sixteen different spots without having to risk the mosquitos. WWF is doing some of this in Sumatra (http://www.worldwildlife.org/cameratrap/trap1.cfm)...no wildmen yet.

[richardm]

WWF is doing some of this in Sumatra (http://www.worldwildlife.org/cameratrap/trap1.cfm)...no wildmen yet.

Didn't the mythical Sumatran wild man turn out to be the Orangutan? I believe the word itself is Malay for "Man of the forest", in fact.

[tracer]

"Orangutan" is the Malay word for "Man of the forest"?

I thought the word derived from the fact that their fur is orange in color!

[William Parcher]

PK, the importance of keeping H. floresiensis and Orang Pendak as distinct concepts is paramount.

The person who started this thead asked about the reality of the found fossils and the modern (18th Century) reports of tiny living Sumatran bipedals who were rather impolite agencies by abducting babies. This person also mentioned that there are beliefs that an undescribed bipedal creature is STILL LIVING on Sumatra.

I have no real criticisms of your ideas and postings here on this. You did mention Orang Pendak. It is not clear if the 18th Century accounts of nasty little forest creeps have anything to do with the modern anecdotal thing known as Orang Pendak. I don't think there are any modern reports of OP stealing babies.

The evidence now presented for OP is highly suspicious and is just like Bigfoot in important ways. That there are 'experts' who are intrigued and exploring (some even claim their own encounters with OP) doesn't change anything about the grand relationship of OP and Bigfoot.

It seems that we either are living on this planet with a variety of undocumented bipedal primates (Yeti, Bigfoot, Orang Pendak), or we are witnessing the effect and reality of human nature (myth making and myth perpetuation). Maybe it is both. But until we have physical biological evidence of these proported bipedal primates, it seems most rational to regard them as being mythological. A skeptic should immediately reverse their position upon the presentation of real and physical evidence. At that point, they should become skeptical of further claims of the nonexistence of the specific entity.

[PatKelley]

"Orangutan" is the Malay word for "Man of the forest"?

I thought the word derived from the fact that their fur is orange in color!
Nope. Orang is man, utan forest. Hence orang pendek or short man.

[PatKelley]

WP: You raise valid points. The only suggestion I am making is that at least with the find, the possiblity of diminutive humanoids in the recent past becomes more plausible. Lacking evidence of the same either current or past in Sumatra puts orang pendek on shaky ground. Excuses could be made about the relative climates of the islands, but I do not count floriensis as proof of orang pendek.

The sticking point is that sasquatch myths do not even have that, and at least in this manner they differ. Orang pendek supporters can point to the floriensis skeletons as the right stature and near the right region: such a thing once existed relatively recently nearby. This does not free them from the burden of proof, and should not supplant requests to provide that proof.

Meanwhile, the few finds of Gigantopithecus spp. do not contain enough data for sasquatch/yeti supporters to conclusively state that at one time such a thing as a giant bipedal hominid did exist, and not in any way places such a creature near the bulk of reported sightings or within recent history.

Burden of proof remains, but the plausability of one is marginally above the other from circumstantial evidence.

[William Parcher]

PK, we have both been using misspellings.

Orang Pendak = Orang Pendek (though Wikipedia shows that both spellings are correct)

Homo floriensis = Homo floresiensis (the former suggesting that it is from Flor and the latter suggesting that it is from Flores).

I suppose it's also appropriate to now mention that these hominoid fossils were found on the Indonesian island of Flores... not on Sumatra. For whatever that is worth.

[PatKelley]

PK, we have both been using misspellings.

Orang Pendak = Orang Pendek (though Wikipedia shows that both spellings are correct)

Homo floriensis = Homo floresiensis (the former suggesting that it is from Flor and the latter suggesting that it is from Flores).

I suppose it's also appropriate to now mention that these hominoid fossils were found on the Indonesian island of Flores... not on Sumatra. For whatever that is worth.
I'll note the spellings. I'm sorry, I thought everyone knew about that - Flores being near the island group that includes Komodo, and having a dryer climate. I'd have mentioned that too if I thought there would be confusion. Sorry.

[Correa Neto]

Almost missed that Giant Rat of Sumatra reference! While the idea of dwarfism on islands being a survival trait is valid, and is shown in such examples as dwarf elephants, flores man represents a conundrum. It is disturbing in multiple respects; it pushes hominid lines into possible contact in relatively recent history, it raises the specter that the all-powerful hominid was still very much at the mercy of natural selection which by extension could include us, and finally it represents the possiblity of a living "missing link."
...snip...

Well, rats grow bigger, as monitors and some flightless birds. Larger mammals will most likely decrease in size (sorry Kong...). However, some animals (specially if they are opportunistic) will fill niches and eventually, if it will provide them with some advantages, and/or if they are free from additional competition, become larger. This seems to have been the case for Varanus komodensis. I may be wrong, but I seem to remember reading something about larger than usual rodents in some Caribbean island.

Flores man, if confirmed as a real species (there are some who claim the remains are from people who suffered of some sort of disease, but they seem to have lost some ground after more findings), was a genus of Homo whose technological skills have not allowed the species to use the natural resources to a point where an evolutionary shift towards a smaller size would not be necessary. Wild speculations-> maybe they were not able to gather food, say, by fishing, and/or never developed technology to build boats, so the population was completely isolated. Thus the speciation. This would go against a supposition linking them with orang pendek, for they would not be able to reach Sumatra mainland.

[William Parcher]

This seems to have been the case for Varanus komodensis.

Indeed. But, I am on a curious bent about the spelling of scientific names.

The Indonesian lizard that has toxic bacteria living on its teeth IS V. komodoensis, NOT V. komodensis, yes?

[Correa Neto]

A quick googling confirmed that Varanus komodoensis is the correct spelling. My fault. Thanks for the correction.

[PatKelley]

Regarding sizing and selection pressure, it would appear that there is a minimum population density to maintain a viable population, and when that runs up against individual energy requirements one has to give; either population dies out, or energy requirements reduce. As long as there is more energy than aggregate minimum population plus energy requirements, larger size is favored as more energy sequestering unless something else interferes with this intraspecies competetive fitness. For komodo, the population size times energy requirements was a low number, and with no predators in competition they grew to the size of alligators...

Reptiles of lower aggregate energy requirements will tend to get larger than their mammalian and avian counterparts on the same amount of energy. Arthropods unfortunately have the drawback of competitive pressure against large size out of the water due to deleterious factors in having an exoskeleton above a certain size; either strength of the skeleton is sacrificed, or mobility is sacrificed. Not many flying crabs.