[Taxacom] Dawwinius media hype (and relationships)

[Kenneth Kinman]

Dear All,
     The earliest members of Order Primatiformes (plesiadapiforms) no
doubt had  clawed hands, any one of which (or combination of which)
could have been used for grooming.  As claws evolved into nails, only
some of the claws were retained for grooming (or other uses).  Tarsiers
still retain two such grooming claws, while lemurs and relatives only
retain one such claw. 
       Therefore the complete loss of such claws in Darwinius doesn't
really tell us much, except that the complete loss of such claws may
have occurred a number of times independently.  This is complicated by
other grooming alternatives, such as toothcombs, and especially mutually
grooming in social groups (especially in anthropoid primates).   
       I really don't see how the loss of grooming claws (or absence of
toothcombs) can be seriously regarded as evidence for Darwinius being
directly related to haplorhines.  In fact, if Darwinius was truly a
primitive member of Haplorhini, I would tend to expect it to have two
grooming claws like tarsiers!!!  It makes me wonder if the authors of
the Darwinius paper have unconsciously cherry-picked a few characters
which seem to support their preconceived notions of how adapoids fit
into the evolutionary tree of primates (and therefore have a bias that
would tend to make them find fault with characters which would dispute
their conclusions).  Their simplistic "cladogram" is far from being a
real cladistic analysis.     
      Darwinius is a great fossil find, and if it excites the public
about science, all the better.  However, the way in which they have
hyped (and monetized) this fossil and not backed up their claims with a
thorough cladistic analysis is rather disturbing, and thus at least some
of the criticisms from fellow scientists is not surprising. 
        If Darwinius split off before the Haplorhini-Strepsirhini
divergence, or lies at the base of Haplorhini, it has great significance
in the line leading to humans.  However, if it is a deadend
strepsirhine, then these authors had better enjoy their 15 minutes of
fame before the media turns on them.  Some of their claims in the press
are even more extraordinary than the claims made in the paper itself.
If the evidence isn't there to back it up, their future credibility is
at risk.  We shall see.
            --------Ken Kinman      
P.S.  If they overlooked requirements of the International Code for
properly publishing the name Darwinius, they are in for criticism for
that alone.  Makes one wonder who peer-reviewed this article.
-------------------------------------------------------
John Grehan wrote: 
6. Loss of all grooming claws. Not sure if presence of grooming claws
was an ancestral feature of primates. They recognize that tarsiers have
grooming claws (a tarsier-leurifomrm synapomorphy) so again this would
argue for a closer relationship between the fossil and anthropoids).