[Taxacom] Hominidae (and Homo)

[John Grehan]

Ken has expressed his opinion about what he thinks about the systematic
groupings within Hominidae, but I see no indication of why this should
be of any interest to anyone else since he fails (as usual) to provide
any information on what he considers as supporting evidence leading to
his choices. We all may have our opinions on systematic relationships
and groupings for particular taxa, but in the absence of evidence used
to make these decisions there is nothing to discuss or comment on.

John Grehan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-
> bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Kenneth Kinman
> Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 11:37 PM
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: [Taxacom] Hominidae (and Homo)
> 
> Dear All,
>       Since my recent classification of Family Hominidae, I have
> continued to review additional literature.  With respect to genus
Homo,
> I am increasingly satisfied that Homo erectus ergaster is indeed best
> regarded as a subspecies, not as a separate species from Homo erectus.
> No problem there.
>       As for Homo habilis, I am now beginning to believe that Homo
> habilis rudolfensis is actually the sister group of the {{H. erectus +
> H. sapiens}} clade and that Homo habilis habilis is the most primitive
> taxon of genus Homo (this also better accords with the known fossil
> record, the earliest known specimens being assigned to Homo habilis
> habilis).  Whether this will make the search for synapomorphies for
> genus Homo easier or more difficult remains to be seen.
>       As for Family Hominidae, I am increasing inclined to put genus
> Orrorin back into that family as a basal genus.  This would leave
genus
> Ardipithecus (in Family Pongidae) as the single sister group of
> Hominidae.  Apparently (and somewhat unfortunately), there is still a
> lot of material provisionally assigned to Ardipithecus which remains
> unpublished.  This genus could end up being doubly paraphyletic, with
> some material ancestral to chimps and other material ancestral to
> Hominidae.  Therefore, don't be surprised if a new genus is proposed
to
> reflect this split (unless the name Sahelanthropus corresponds to one
> and Ardipithecus the other).  Given the uncertainty, I will not yet
> formally put Orrorin back into Famly Hominidae, but that is what I
> anticipate could very well happen.
>        -------Cheers,
>                      Ken Kinman
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> 
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of
> these methods:
> 
> (1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
> 
> Or (2) a Google search specified as:
> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here