Descriptions of the lower limb skeleton of Homo floresiensis W.L. Jungers a, * , S.G. Larson a , W. Harcourt-Smith b , M.J. Morwood c, f , T. Sutikna d , Rokhus Due Awe d , T. Djubiantono e a Department of Anatomical Sciences, Stony Brook University Medical Center, School of Medicine, Stony Brook, NY 11794-8081, USA b Department of Vertebrate Paleontology, American Museum of Natural History, New York, NY, USA c GeoQuEST Research Centre, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia d Indonesian Centre for Archaeology, Jl. Raya Condet Pejaten No. 4, Jakarta 12001, Indonesia e The National Research and Development Centre for Archaeology, Jakarta, Indonesia f Archaeology and Palaeoanthropology, School of Human and Environmental Studies, University of New England, Armidale, New South Wales 2351, Australia article info Article history: Received 18 January 2008 Accepted 1 August 2008 Keywords: Homo floresiensis Os coxae Femur Tibia Fibula Patella Foot bones abstract Bones of the lower extremity have been recovered for up to nine different individuals of Homo floresiensis – LB1, LB4, LB6, LB8, LB9, LB10, LB11, LB13, and LB14. LB1 is represented bya bony pelvis (damaged but now repaired), femora, tibiae, fibulae, patellae, and numerous foot bones. LB4/2 is an immature right tibia lacking epiphyses. LB6 includes a fragmentary metatarsal and two pedal phalanges. LB8 is a nearly complete right tibia (shorter than that of LB1). LB9 is a fragment of a hominin femoral diaphysis. LB10 is a proximal hallucal phalanx. LB11 includes pelvic fragments and a fragmentary metatarsal. LB13 is a patellar fragment, and LB14 is a fragment of an acetabulum. All skeletal remains recovered from Liang Bua were extremely fragile, and some were badly damaged when they were removed temporarily from Jakarta. At present, virtually all fossil materials have been returned, stabilized, and hardened. These skeletal remains are described and illustrated photographically. The lower limb skeleton exhibits a uniquely mosaic pattern, with many primitive-like morphologies; we have been unable to find this combination of ancient and derived (more human-like) features in either healthy or pathological modern humans, regardless of body size. Bilateral asymmetries are slight in the postcranium, and muscle markings are clearly delineated on all bones. The long bones are robust, and the thickness of their cortices is well within the ranges seen in healthy modern humans. LB1 is most probably a female based on the shape of her greater sciatic notch, and the marked degree of lateral iliac flaring recalls that seen in australopith- ecines such as ‘‘Lucy’’ (AL 288-1). The metatarsus has a human-like robusticity formula, but the proximal pedal phalanges are relatively long and robust (and slightly curved). The hallux is fully adducted, but we suspect that a medial longitudinal arch was absent. Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Introduction In the original description and diagnosis of Homo floresiensis (Brown et al., 2004), several hind-limb postcranial skeletal elements were highlighted and described. Analysis of the bony pelvis sug- gested that the type specimen (LB1) was a female, and the degree of lateral iliac flaring was described as ‘‘marked’’ in comparison to modern humans. The femur of LB1 was said to be robust and circular in cross-section and lacking a pilaster; the femoral neck was described as compressed anteroposterially, the bicondylar angle was reported as relatively high (w14 degrees), and muscle markings were characterized as ‘‘not well-developed.’’ The lesser trochanter and intertrochanteric crest of the femur were noted as very prom- inent. The tibia of LB1 was characterized as robust and slightly curved along its long axis, and the midshaft was described as oval in cross-section. Overall postcranial morphology was concluded to be consistent with human-like, obligate bipedalism. The initial report was followed by a second paper (Morwood et al., 2005) that described additional postcrania of LB1 as well as a new tibia (LB8) of another individual even smaller than LB1. This new tibia was also characterized as very robust and oval in cross- section at midshaft. With the recovery of a humerus for LB1, inter- limb proportions were assessed for the first time and were found to be similar to Australopithecus and distinct from humans and early Homo erectus (also see Argue et al., 2006; Jungers, 2009). Shaft and articular dimensions of all the major limb bones were argued to be robust relative to lengths. Table 1 of Morwood et al. (2005) also listed a complete left fibula of LB1, a child’s tibia (LB4/2), a femoral shaft fragment (LB9), a fragmentary metatarsal (LB6/5), and some phalanges of the foot (LB6/6, LB6/13). Morwood et al. concluded that LB1 ‘‘is not just an aberrant or pathological individual, but is * Corresponding author. E-mail address: williamjungers@yahoo.com (W.L. Jungers). Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Human Evolution journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jhevol 0047-2484/$ – see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2008.08.014 Journal of Human Evolution 57 (2009) 538–554