Or, more accurately, the species currently known as Homo floresiensis may not belong in the genus Homo after all.
Friday, October 2, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
A few of the blogs I read
- Au Courant (Libraries)
- Bad Astronomy (Science)
- Cognitive Daily (Science/Cognition)
- Dispatches from the Culture Wars (Politics, Secularism)
- Emerging Technologies Librarian (Libraries/Information)
- Eunomia (Politics)
- Good Math, Bad Math
- if:book (Information)
- LibrarianInBlack (Libraries/Technology)
- Millard Filmore's Bathtub (History)
- New West (Culture/The West)
- Pharyngula (Science/Secularism)
- Ralph Maughan's Wildife News (Wildlife, the West)
- Slacktivist (Culture)
- Strange Maps (cartography)
- The Badwy House Provisions (Politics)
- The Panda's Thumb (Science)
- The Scholarly Kitchen (scholarly publishing)
- The Shifted Librarian (Libraries/Information)
- Why Evolution Is True (Science)
The Archives
-
▼
2009
(223)
-
▼
October
(17)
- Friday photo
- Indiana's game
- electronic v. print
- on Homo religioso
- Friday photo
- On progress
- Back in July I wrote about a case where ASCAP is s...
- Friday photo
- Arnica fire in Yellowstone
- Patricia sent me this link of Ohio as a piano. An...
- Friday photo
- Obama is awesome - compared to Bush, anyway
- Jesus - that f***ing pussy
- Talking about wolves
- Friday photo
- Hobbits aren't people?
- The networked world
-
▼
October
(17)
1 comment:
I heard a different (somewhat scandalous) justification for removing hobbits from the genus Homo. Something to do with parentage, hobos and rabbits ...
Post a Comment