[Taxacom] Why Australians are more real than Americans: implications for taxonomy!

[Steve Manning]

As a non-expert in the field, I just thought of a third possibility 
along with the orangutan and chimp possibilities:  Maybe humans 
evolved more than once, at least once from an ancestor closer to 
chimps and at least one other time from an ancestor closer to 
orangs.  Is that a possibility either or both sides could live 
with?  Can it be falsified?  If so, how?

How much of human, orang, and chimp diversity has been sampled, both 
morphologically with regard to the 28-45 human-orang morphological 
synapomorphies alluded to and with regard to DNA human-chimp 
synapomorphies?  Do any of the well-studied morphological characters 
vary between or within human populations?  Or between or within chimp 
or orang populations for that matter?  Same exact questions for the 
molecular analyses.

Finally, are there biogeographical correlations with any of the above 
variations, morphological or molecular, if any, that have been found 
WITHIN humans? WITHIN orangs? or WITHIN chimps?

Steve Manning

At 10:12 PM 9/6/2009, John Grehan wrote:
>I know its always tempting to get a sideways dig in, but its no more
>informative than to say that its "up there with Thorpian denial of the
>evidence that points to the human-orangutan relationship"
>
>John Grehan
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>[mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Stephen Thorpe
>Sent: Sunday, September 06, 2009 5:53 PM
>To: Richard Pyle; TAXACOM at mailman.nhm.ku.edu; 'Jim Croft'
>Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why Australians are more real than Americans:
>implications for taxonomy!
>
> >So... if I understand you correctly... you're under the
>delusi...err....impression that "real" species boundaries exist in
>nature outside of human imagination and convenience -- correct?
>
>It is manifestly self-evidently so! To deny this is up there with
>Grehanian denial of the evidence that points to the human-chimp
>relationship!
>Importantly, though, I am NOT saying that species boundaries are ALWAYS
>absolutely precise and clear, and indeed, there isn't an absolutely
>precise boundary between Australia and ocean either - the tide goes in
>and out and it is a fuzzy boundary. Nevertheless, Australia does have
>"real" boundaries in nature outside of human imagination and convenience
>-- correct?
>
>To see the "real" species boundaries, you only have to imagine a world
>in which there were none. I hope you have the capacity for imagination!
>:) In such a world, every morphotype would grade imperceptibly into
>every other morphotype. Species boundaries would have to be imposed
>completely arbitrarily.
>
>I repeat a previous analogy: there are heavy people and there are light
>people, but it is not a very useful classification because of the
>continuum between them. But if all people of a certain intermediate
>weight class died out, then we could classify people usefully by weight.
>It would not be a taxonomic classification, but it could be! Imagine a
>world with two extant species of Homo, morphologically identical except
>that one species were 30-60kg, and the other species 70-120kg as
>adults...
>
>Stephen
>
>________________________________________
>From: Richard Pyle [deepreef at bishopmuseum.org]
>Sent: Monday, 7 September 2009 9:36 a.m.
>To: Stephen Thorpe; TAXACOM at mailman.nhm.ku.edu; 'Jim Croft'
>Subject: RE: Why Australians are more real than Americans: implications
>for taxonomy!
>
> > Yes, Richard, species ARE real entities in the world! They might not
> > have existed in a world where there was an unbroken continuum between
> > diverse morphologies, but in our world there are "gaps" which break
> > the biotic realm up into species.
>
>Please... for the sake of us all... don't get me started. :-)
>
>So... if I understand you correctly... you're under the
>delusi...err....impression that "real" species boundaries exist in
>nature outside of human imagination and convenience -- correct?
>
>If so, we are operating under fundamentally different presumptions about
>the nature of biodiversity, so we will never arrive at a mutual
>understanding of what is meant by a "taxon concept circumscription"*.
>
>No sense cluttering the list again with this debate -- there are enough
>iterations of it in the Taxacom archives.
>
>Aloha,
>Rich
>
>*Note: My use of the elaborated term "taxon concept circumscription" is
>to disguish it from "species concept" (in the sense of "biological
>species concept", "phylogenetic species concept", etc.) -- which is an
>equally contentious and very-much related debate, but still quite
>different from the "species are real" debate.
>_______________________________________________
>
>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
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>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