Consensus (was: Google for Internet Database of all life...)

[John Grehan]

> From: Taxacom Discussion List [mailto:TAXACOM at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU] On
> Behalf Of Ken Kinman
...)
> 
> John,
>      It really surprises me that you of all people wouldn't recognize
that
> a paraphyletic Pongidae is inherently more stable than chopping it up
and
> arranging the pieces in every possible cladification possible.  

Me of all people? Since when have I stood for stability in science?

One of the
> results is that we have at least four different concepts of Family
> Hominidae: (1) Homo and its extinct relatives; (2) Homo + Pan and
> relatives; (3) Homo + Pan + Gorilla (i.e. African great apes); and (4)
> Homo + Pan + Gorilla + Pongo (all great apes).  Strict cladification
has
> completely destabilized the meaning of both Pongidae and Hominidae.
And
> why?  Because Hennig came up with a rule against paraphyly and a bunch
of
> Ivory Tower types spread the practice to their students and anyone
else
> who would listen (and increasingly penalize those who resisted).  So
if
> you write to a museum asking for material of Pongidae or Hominidae
these
> days, you'd better clarify exactly what you mean.

Don't know about the "Ivory Tower types" but when it comes to Pongidae
you are right, cladistic criteria do necessarily lead to "Pongidae"
becoming a phylogenetically different grouping from synonymy with the
great apes.

As for alternatives, one already published by Schwartz (1986) (which
does not list all taxa that may be included) is:

Hominidae
        Homo
        Australopithecus

Pongidae
        Sivapithecus
        Pongo

Panidae
        Pan
        Gorilla
        [Morotopithecus]*

Dryopithecudiae
        Dryopithecus (thin enameled taxa only)
        Rangwapithecus
        Proconsul
        Dendropithecus

* - inclusion of Morotopithecus not in Schwartz (1986) but inferred from
Schwartz (1983) based on uniquely shared similarity of incisive foramen
with gorilla.

Of course this classification needs to be 'tested' through scientific
critique, but also of course the scientific standards of higher primate
evolutionary studies are so defective in this respect as to be
dysfunctional.


Abandoning a paraphyletic Pongidae, or Amphibia, or
> Reptilia (etc.) has done nothing but cause more and more confusion.

>From what I have seen of higher primate systematics there is no shortage
of confusion with the current classification.

> Cladification is sort of like water----we obviously need it, but too
much
> of it and it drowns you.  

That might be a nice rhetorical statement, but I think there is no such
thing as "too much" of anything in science. One makes one's jusdgemetn
call according to one's criteria. In the case of higher primate
systematics, a closer evolutionary relationship between humans and
orangutans does demand a revision of the taxonomy - cladistics or no
cladistics.

Hey, I think even the
> Encyclopaedia Britannica still uses the paraphyletic Family Pongidae
(for
> great apes, minus hominids), so I still have plenty of company on
this.

If what is good for the masses is the criteria for what is good science
then ok.

John Grehan