It’s time to go spanning the globe for anatomy news and notes!
Would J.R.R. Tolkien Approve?
We often wonder if J.R.R. Tolkien (Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit) would approve of the use of the word “hobbit” in layman’s language to describe Homo floresiensis, an extinct human species that once lived on the island of Flores, in Indonesia. But it turns out the word is not his, though he asserts that he came up with it on his own.
In 1938, according to Wikipedia, shortly after the original release of The Hobbit a letter in the English paper The Observer asked if Tolkien's Hobbits were modelled after “little furry men seen in Africa by natives and … at least one scientist,” and also referenced an old fairy tale called The Hobbit from 1904.
Tolkien denied using these sources as inspiration, and no trace of the African Hobbits or the fairy tale collection was ever found.
Well, we digress.
But this article in EarthSky walks us through the latest on Homo floresiensis, including the fact that the ancestors of this real-life “hobbit” were smaller than previously thought. Yes, the progenitors were even more hobbit-like. A human adult of this species from about 60,000 years ago was only 3 feet, 5.7 inches in height. This summer scientists announced they had recovered and reconstructed a section of a humerus. It’s dated as 700,000 years old. And a microscopic study of the fossil’s structure determined that it came from an adult. And that individual was only 3 feet, 3.4 inches tall.
Scientists believe H. floresiensis became extinct about 50,000 years ago. But its origins? This is up for debate. One camp believes the hobbits descended from an ancient human species called Homo Erectus that arrived on the island of Flores one million years ago. A second camp is invested in the idea that that species evolved from another, older human species.
Time, as time does, will only tell.
Olympic-Level Specificity
With the 2024 Paris Olympics in the rearview mirror, have you ever wondered how athletes keep breaking records? In Paris, 31 world records were set. Most of those were in the velodrome. Four years earlier, 22 world records fell in Tokyo and four years before that another 27 were surpassed in Rio de Janeiro.
How? Well, this article looks at some of the ways in which these athletes’ bodies are specialized for their individual sport. For instance, Michael Phelps and his long wingspan (three inches longer than his height). Phelps’ body produces nearly half the amount of lactic acid as his rivals, meaning less recovery time. (Phelps is now retired from the sport, of course.)
How about long distance runners and their elite ability to use oxygen during prolonged physical exertion? Olympic marathon runner Eliud Kipchoge breathes around 200 litres of air per minute during maximal exercise.
The variety of ways the body is shaped to match the needs of particular sports is remarkable, with the unique body shape of bicyclists with a lean upper body (to reduce air resistance) but with well-developed quadriceps, hamstrings and calves that are needed for generating power on the bike.
How many world records will be broken in Los Angeles in 2028?
Chew on This
We are looking forward to sinking our teeth into this book: BITE: An Incisive History of Teeth, from Hagfish to Humans by Bill Schutt.
See what the author did there? With ‘incisive’ as a vague reference to ‘incisor’? At least, we hope he intended that great pun. Incisive comes from the Latin word ‘caedere,’ which means “to cut.”
We haven’t devoured the whole book yet, but for now we’ll have to rely on a tantalizing review in The New York Times for some initial morsels.
A few nuggets from the Times’ review:
Teeth are responsible for “much of the diversity and long-term evolutionary success of the vertebrates.”
Cichlid fish have teeth so precisely tuned that they can tear the scales off either the left or right side of prey, but not both.
Some venomous shrews devour their victims live over several weeks, keeping them breathing but immobile with nips of paralyzing venom.
The 55-million-year-old ancestor of horses, for instance, had flat, low-slung molars. Later descendants had thicker, taller back teeth that could withstand more grinding.
Fossil teeth have also disproved the stereotype of Neanderthals as brutish raw-meat eaters who lacked the skills and smarts to cook. “Neanderthals had cuisine.”
Like it or not, we all attach social value to teeth. George Washington had just one lonely tooth left in his jaw on his first Inauguration Day, and none left when his term was over. He likely wore dentures less for eating than to help his elocution during speeches — and to look more presidential.
By the way, Schutt has written books on the human heart, too, and one about recognizing that cannibalism is more common than you might think. And where would cannibals be without teeth?
.
.
.
.
Comments