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

[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
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.  

Ken - what characters do you see as unique to Notharctidae that would include Notharctidae. I may have missed the evidence, but in looking through the paper I saw a great deal of comparative emphasis with anthropoids and tarsius, but not on its nothartid status. I don't necessariyuly have any problem with it being a notharctid as I have never studied the sytematics of this group. Schwartz (1986) did not come to any firm conclusion about notharctid relationships, suggesting that perhaps nothartines and strepsirhines are sister taxa.

John Grehan


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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 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