[Taxacom] New classification of Hominidae (incl. the "hobbit")

[Kenneth Kinman]

Dear All,
     I was asked to forward the post below to the list.  I thank Mark
for his response, and my own response to it is that I indeed do not
intend to back down.  I gave two perfectly good reasons for
preliminarily assigning the "hobbit" (florensis) to early Homo erectus
(sensu lato), and near georgicus in particular, and John Grehan offered
neither a credible rebuttal to those reasons, nor any attempt to justify
any alternate assignment.            
     Nor will I back down on the assignment of Kenyanthropus platyops to
Australopithecus (and I suspect it will indeed prove to be a synonym of
A. afarensis).  As for the proposed outgroups to Hominidae, Ardipithecus
and Orrorin seem excellent candidates, although whether they clade
together or separately remains to be seen.  Sahelanthropus is less
certain and may end up clading with gorillas and/or chimps.  John
Grehan's hypothesis of orangutans as an alternate outgroup to hominids,
on the other hand, is obviously still accepted by very few biologists.  
       --------Ken Kinman
----------------------------------------------------- 
Ken, 
     For some reason the listserve rejected my posting. Please forward
it on my behalf. 
-Mark 
------- Forwarded message follows -------
From:  <farmer at cellmate.cb.uga.edu>
Subject:  Re: [Taxacom] New classification of Hominidae (incl. the
"hobbit") 
Date sent: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 20:32:14 -0400 
Dear Ken, 
I have never posted to this group before and my expertise is in protists
(a long way from hominids) BUT I think that science only progresses by
individuals putting forward new ideas and offering data in support of
them (as opposed to creationist BS of "new ideas"). 

Ken, I am way out my area of comfort zone here but I think for the good
of science you should not back down, UNLESS the data compels you to do
so. I myself have abandoned my long held ideas about mitochondrial
origins in the earliest eukaryotes, but it was the data and reasoned
arguments that caused me to do so. That is the ESSENCE of good science. 
-Mark Farmer 
On 30 Apr 2009 at 16:59, Kenneth Kinman wrote: 
Dear All, 
       Well, if everyone agrees with John Grehan that my
classifications are "pretty worthless", then maybe I should just stop.
But I wouldn't post them if I didn't believe they would provide a useful
new viewpoint (at least for some workers) compared to other available
classifications. 
------- End of forwarded message -------