[Previous by date - Re: AFROTHERIA, CROWS & SPECIES CONCEPTS]
[Next by date - Re: AFROTHERIA, CROWS & SPECIES CONCEPTS]
[Previous by subject - Re: AFROTHERIA, CROWS & SPECIES CONCEPTS]
[Next by subject - Re: AFROTHERIA, CROWS & SPECIES CONCEPTS]
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 17:39:24 +0200 (MEST)
From: David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>
To: PhyloCode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu, dinosaur@usc.edu
Subject: Re: AFROTHERIA, CROWS & SPECIES CONCEPTS
Sorry for the cross-posting (I got this 3 times):
> > <Great. Let's take this to the PhyloCode mailing list (which hasn't
> > had any traffic for months) and argue against any ruling about species
> > in at least the first version of the PhyloCode, which is after all
> > about clades. :-)
The PhyloCode, I mean, not necessarily the 1st version. :-)
> Well, not definitions of a species, per se, but in defining hominid
> genera, Camilo Cela-Conde and Frasisco Ayala (2003) suggest a four genus
> rule in Hominidae, dumping a lot of new genera, on the basis of
> so-called "adaptative criteria"; these were defined by Mayr (a stauch
> opponent to cladist theory and phylogenetic taxonomy); quoting
> Cela-Conde and Ayala (pg. 7686): "This evolutionary and ecological
> concept of the genus leads to identification of three hominid genera,
> corresponding to three distinctive adaptative zones:
Distinctive adaptive zones. Ouch. When is it distinctive? I know it when I
see it, sometimes.
> (i) Australopithecus, encompassing the first
> hominids that gradually developed bipedalism;
This _presupposes_ that bipedalism was "gradually developed" so late. But
watch a walking gibbon: they never use their arms to walk. They are
bipedal. No wonder, considering their long arms, and the fact that they
spend most of their lives hanging vertically. In short, maybe
knuckle-walking is the derived state, not bipedalism.
> (ii) Paranthropus,
Not mentioned in the scheme below.
> (iii) Homo, the branch that evolved large brains
Rather late.
> Hominidae
Others consider this, in the extreme case, _a part of the subtribe
Hominina_. (Want to end that debate? Implement the PhyloCode. :-) )
> Praeanthropinae
> Praeanthropus (including Orrorin, and Australopithecus species
> afarensis and portions of africanus, bahrelghazali, anamensis and
> garhi)
I assume they discuss why which portions of *A. africanus*?
> Australopithecinae
> Australopithecus (including boisei, robustus, africanus, and
> aethiopicus)
When *Paranthropus* (see above) is recognized, then it contains all these
except *A. africanus* (which has been suspected to be their sistergroup or
something).
> Homininae
> Homo (including Pithecantrhopus, Kenyanthropus, Protanthropus,
> Sinanthropus, Cyphanthropus, Africanthropus, Telanthropus,
> Atlanthropus, Tchadanthropus ...
> I'm-gonna-hurt-my-fingers-anthropus
> ...)
*Kenyanthropus* was new (2002), the rest (AFAIK) are old synonyms of *Homo
erectus*.
> While the authors rightfully
> question the neccessary assignment of such ambiguous
> taxa as *Orrorin* and *Sahelanthropus* to Hominidae
Why "ambiguous"? Fragmentary, yes, but they have not been considered
synonymous with anything.
In the extreme lumping proposal (see above), Hominidae includes
"even" the gibbons (as Hylobatinae).
> [...] including *Orrorin* as a
> species of *Praeanthropus* along with rightfully upright, bipedal
> "man-apes" such as *A. afarensis* ("Lucy").
Isn't *O.* rightfully upright and bipedal? AFAIK what little evidence
there is suggests precisely that.
> The overcomplication and rather ... unique ... perspectives on all
> parts of the field of hominid systematics may be a brush fire waiting to
> happen and maybe that would be the best and most ideal candidate to test
> PT on, given a specimen-based phylogenetic and cladistic treatment.
Yes, yes, yes!!! -- because only one cladistic analysis has AFAIK ever
been done to elucidate our relationships, and that was long before the
discovery of *Orrorin*, *Kenyanthropus* and so on. Somehow nobody seems to
care...
Therefore -- because everything is weird in human "phylogenetics"
-- nobody would regard a cladogram and phylogenetically defined names as
too weird to be taken serious. This looks like a great chance. Who'll try?
:-)
--
+++ GMX - Mail, Messaging & more http://www.gmx.net +++
Bitte lächeln! Fotogalerie online mit GMX ohne eigene Homepage!