Huzzah! Ah izz a smarty-pants!

(warning: massive amounts of geekery and intellectual fip-fappery ahead. Do not give to small children or those prone to epileptic seizures. You are a bad person if you do.)

I’m a wee li’l undergrad in anthropology, and I just got through a course on prehistoric human evolution, as taught by a PhD minion of the lovely and brilliant Lorena Madrigal. About half the grade in yonder course was this massive honkin’ research paper on a topic of our choice, and I chose to write a couple dozen pages on Homo floresiensis, the ‘Hobbit Man’ they discovered back in 2003 and announced in 2004. This little guy’s been near and dear to my heart since 2005, when the discoverer, Dr. Peter Brown, came to my university to give a lecture on his finds. In my paper, I took the position that H. floresiensis was a seperate and unique species unto itself, the product of an adaptive radiation out of Africa that happened before the wanderings-out of H. ergaster dated to about 1.8 million years ago. And like a big boy, I came to this conclusion all by myself, based on a number of skeletal traits as outlined in the literature available on the subject.

Since I got a 100% on the paper, I was already doing the happy dance. But there’s more — I may be right! An upcoming study reveals that I came to pretty much the same conclusion they did, and I did it without the benefit of such fripperies like PhD’s, field experience or half a clue as to what the hell I’m talking about. Huzzah! I feel intellectually validated! I would like to thank my big bottle of cheap Sangria for helping me through this labor of love, and please forgive my flagrant intellectual wankery.

Sweet - Did you submit your paper before the authors published? If so, is there any way for some credit or recognition to come your way?

You da little man!
:smiley:

Congratulations! Enjoy your day.

Lorena Madrigal is really someone’s name? How cool.

Oh, and congratulations on the paper!

Awesome! Congratulations!

I never really put much thought into it, but I kind of assumed that the little fellers were not h. sapiens, as they seem like a pretty early branch off in human evolution.

Now, if it is discovered that they had a love of pipe weed, that would be totally cool.

So where does all this fit into the dialectical epistemology of the spatial heterarchy of the cultural darwinistic Levi-Straussian theory? :wink:

[sub]M.A. Anthropology, 1984[/sub]

They evolved to wear children’s sizes. It’s what they had in their jean pool.

Duh.

No; I finished the paper not more than a month or so ago, and the conclusions were based completely upon the literature at my disposal. I’m sure the authors of the published paper came to their conclusions long before I did; so I cannot claim any legitimate credit. I’m just indulging in some intellectual wankery here.

It, uhh, makes more plausible a synthesis between the multiregional and out-of-Africa paradigms in the phylogeny of the genus Homo? Have mercy on this poor simple-minded undergrad! Waaaa!

Too bad, but congrats are due!