[Taxacom] My primate classification remains unchanged (sorry, Darwinius)

[Kenneth Kinman]

Dear All, 
       Anyone who is acquainted with my many
classification updates on Taxacom (involving taxa all the way from
bacteria to mammals) probably already knows that I'm clearly always
willing to recode my classifications to reflect a well-supported,
revised cladistic phylogeny. You would think that a new fossil
(Darwinius) claimed to be the "Eighth wonder of the world" (among other
superlatives) would necessitate some changes. However, at this time, I
still see no reason to change my classification of Order Primatiformes
or the cladistic coding within it.             Upon
several more days of reflection and reading even more commentaries by
other biologists, I continue to assume that the authors of genus
Darwinius are actually correct about one thing, assigning it to Family
Notharctidae (one of three families in the Adapoidea clade).  I have not
yet read any comments at all that dispute that assignment. However, I
will continue to place Family Notharctidae at the base of Suborder
Strepsirhini.  As others have pointed out, the proposed synapomorphies
which supposedly unite Darwinius and haplorhines could very well be
plesiomorphies and/or convergences (in other words, homoplasies).
       
      Still, I would not be particularly surprised if Family
Notharctidae (or Superfamily Adapoidea as a whole) might eventually slip
back one clade as the sister group to Euprimates (Strepsirhini +
Haplorhini). And in spite of the claims of some of the authors of
Darwinius (in the press conference and media), it still seems to me only
a distant third option that all or part of Adapoidea needs to be
transferred to Suborder Haplorhini (either at the base or a more derived
position closer to anthropoids). The failure of those authors to compare
Darwinius to Family Eosimiidae (in particular) is an extremely
disturbing error of omission (as Chris Beard and other primatologists
have been quick to point out).       
      In summary, the taxonomy of Order Primatiformes (Primates
sensu lato) continues to be the focus of several different "turf wars"
over various parts of the lineage leading to Homo sapiens. This one
involving the base of Suborder Haplorhini (and its origins), others
involving which great apes are sister group to Family Hominidae (sensu
stricto), and of course how "the hobbit" (floresiensis) is probably
related to members of genus Homo. By comparison, the interrelationship
of Neanderthals to modern humans is frankly just a minor problem (and as
my latest classification of genus Homo shows, I regard that as best
regarded as a cladistic problem on the subspecies level only). 
        Paleoanthropology is frankly far too often a
field of uncooperative and egocentric warfare which is rather unbecoming
of some of the scientists that are involved.  That it increasing has
become a media circus risks reducing research on human origins to the
level of party politics, and we know how poorly most people regard the
level of bickering among party politicians (particularly in Washington,
D.C.). 
        For more criticism of the hyperbole surrounding
Darwinius, see the article "Origin of the Specious" in the latest issue
of the Sunday Times (of London), through the weblink below. Notice that
they quote Dr. Elwyn Simons (supporting my own appraisal) that Darwinius
is most likely a "dead end".   If it does prove to be a haplorhine, all
the better, but I am not going to hold my breath.   By the way, has
anyone seen "The Link" (the documentary or the book) to see if either
contains anything more helpful than the paper itself?  
       -------Ken Kinman                     

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article6350095.ece