[Taxacom] My primate classification remains unchanged

[Kenneth Kinman]

Dear All, 
        Quite frankly, the characterization (or content)
of Family Notharctidae is increasingly difficult to determine. Perhaps
most problematic is its subfamily Cercamoniinae, which could now itself
be even more of a wastebasket which renders the whole congolmeration
polyphyletic. 
      Some genera, such as Donrussellia, are claimed to be
strepsirhine by some workers and haplorhine by others. Therefore the
recent assignment of Darwinius to Cercamoniinae by some of those who
also assign Donrussellia to Cercamoniinae, makes me further wonder
whether the assignment of Darwinius to Subfamily Cercamoniiane, Family
Notharctidae (or even Suborder Strepsirhini) is particularly trustworthy
(not to mention all the other mistakes that resulted in Darwinius not
being validly published in the first place, and the media-driven
confusion about the probable placement of Darwinius). 
      As even some of the authors of Darwinius have
complained, this paper was rushed into publication in ways that many
find contrary to what is scientifically helpful. If we start operating
like "rock stars", or biologists who think like "rock stars", we are in
for lots of credibility problems down the line. The list of rock stars
who are "one-hit wonders" is very long, and not something science should
want to follow. If Darwinius is a "deadend strepsirhine", it is likely
to become a one-hit wonder no matter how complete a fossil it might be.
If it actually is a haplorhine, it might have more value, but the lack
of a good cladistic analysis of its position still leaves us wondering
where it actually lies.      
        -------Ken Kinman                     
P.S. I find it even more exasperating that so much of the literature on
primate evolution can only be accessed by paying excessive fees for that
literature. Many authors have chosen to publish their work either in
books that are copyrighted or journals that charge relatively even more
excessive rates for just single articles. The monetization of primate
evolution (especially that which has already been publicly subsidized)
is a slap in the face of those who simply want to understand how they
evolved. Whether I will further update any of my primate classifications
therefore now remains in doubt.  To tell you the truth, there are plenty
of other interesting cladistic problems (in other taxa) that do not
require such a financial investment in accessing the relevant literature
and which is often far less expensive (if not free).  As I stated
before, my primate classification remains unchanged.  I will not pay for
access to literature that is likely to result in little or no further
understanding of the problem or in anyway leads to a reevaluation of the
interrelationships of the taxa.  I have better things upon which to
spend my time.           
--------------------------------------- 
John Grehan wrote: 
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 notharctines and strepsirhines are sister taxa.