[Taxacom] Orang possibilities

[John Grehan]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Thorpe [mailto:s.thorpe at auckland.ac.nz]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 5:19 PM
> To: John Grehan; TAXACOM at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: RE: Orang possibilities
> 
> John,
> [I wrote] > These days the great apes (formerly Pongidae) are usually
> considered to be Hominidae too, though nobody has yet dared to widen
the
> (subjective!) concept of
> > the genus Homo to include Pan and/or Pongo and/or Gorilla!
> [John Grehan replied] That is not correct.
> [my reply] Er ... which bit is not correct, John, and why? 

The bit about nobody widening the genus Homo to include Pan.

I can assure
> you that in plenty of published articles the former Pongidae is
subfamily
> Ponginae of family Hominidae, and contains only Pongo, while Homininae
> contains Homo, Pan, and Gorilla. Gibbons are usually out in a separate
> family Hylobatidae.

Yes there are plenty among those that support the chimpanzee
relationship.

> 
> Note that whether you think Pongo or Pan is closest to Homo, the old
> notion of Pongidae (excluding Homo) is paraphyletic!

We retained Hominidae for humans and their nearest fossil relatives
(also accepted by a number of specialists in the field), Pongidae for
the orangutan clade, and Panidae for the modern African apes (which
would also apply to their closest fossil relatives).

> If you just meant that it wasn't correct that 'though nobody has yet
dared
> to widen the (subjective!) concept of the genus Homo to include Pan
and/or
> Pongo and/or Gorilla!', because somebody has, then fine, it was only
an
> offhand remark!

No worries

> Just a thought, but of course there doesn't have to be a single extant
> species of great ape closest to Homo. It is in principle possible for
Homo
> to be the sister taxon of all the extant great apes, or any pair of
them
> (such as Pongo + Pan)...

No there does not, but if the orangutan is a single species and the
morphological evidence is correct then there is a single extant species
of great ape that is closest to Homo.

John Grehan

> 
> Stephen
> ________________________________________
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [taxacom-
> bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of John Grehan
> [jgrehan at sciencebuff.org]
> Sent: Thursday, 10 September 2009 12:01 a.m.
> To: TAXACOM at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Orang possibilities
> 
> From: Stephen Thorpe [mailto:s.thorpe at auckland.ac.nz]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2009 11:33 PM
> 
> >Extra 2% - not significant at all if its just primitive retention
> > But the molecular people must know that! How do they tell if a DNA
> sequence is
> > plesiomorphic vs. apomorphic? If it was primitive retention, you
would
> expect to
> >  find the same sequence more widely in ancestral primates, wouldn't
> you?
> 
> This gets to the core question and the matter is rather nuanced. When
> there is reference to a 1% or 2% etc difference, the complimentary
> percentage of similarity refers to all matching bases. In studies of
DNA
> hybridizaiton that generated such figures there was no knowledge of
> which base matched with which and so no way to even theorize primitive
> vs derived. Molecular systematists have since figured this out and
> acknowledge the non-cladistic nature of DNA hybridization and its
> inferiority to subsequent sequence analysis, yet at the same time also
> quoting the result as if it were totally valid (presumably because it
> fits the sequence result.
> 
> Sequence analysis is problematic because one has no trace of what base
> replaced what base. In many studies the initial homology is determined
> by alignment theory which imposes overall similarity of the total
'best'
> match to determine the individual homology. Some studies use outgroup
> comparisons to root the tree, but this does not negate the initial
> problem of base replacement, or the extremely limited sampling of the
> outgroup (as if a few species will give the total picture of base
> representation).
> 
> While molecular theorists vehemently deny any such problems and
> therefore uncertainty over the result for hominid origins, they are at
> the same time now jumping to SINE comparisons as truly cladistic (a
> necessary argument only if the other methods are indeed problematic)
> while introducing another set of assumptions that are also
problematic.
> 
> For almost all evolutionary biologists, including pretty much everyone
> who has commented on this list, the nuances don't matter. They invoke
> the law of large numbers and the consistency of the molecular result
to
> accept that the molecular result is nevertheless right and the
> morphological result is wrong.
> 
> >At present the morphological evidence suggests the monophyly of
> >hominids with respect to other large bodied hominoids
> 
> > These days the great apes (formerly Pongidae) are usually considered
> to be
> > Hominidae too, though nobody has yet dared to widen the
(subjective!)
> concept of
> > the genus Homo to include Pan and/or Pongo and/or Gorilla!
> 
> That is not correct.
> 
> John Grehan
> ________________________________________
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> [taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of John Grehan
> [jgrehan at sciencebuff.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, 9 September 2009 3:10 p.m.
> To: TAXACOM at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: [Taxacom] Orang possibilities
> 
> At present the morphological evidence suggests the monophyly of
hominids
> with respect to other large bodied hominoids, and that they are more
> closely related to orangutans than chimpanzees, so the possibility
> suggested has no immediate support.
> 
> With regard to sampling of diversity it depends on what that is in
> reference to. The details of sampling of characters is documented in
the
> appendix to our article.
> 
> Variation of features within populations has not been documented to my
> knowledge. But I've looked at thousands of individuals of different
> geographic origins and all are consistently the same with respect to
> some of the visible characters (e.g. ear structure, receded hairline,
> forward cranial hair). Others may vary.
> 
> John Grehan
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Manning [mailto:sdmanning at asub.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2009 4:50 PM
> To: John Grehan; TAXACOM at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why Australians are more real than Americans:
> implications for taxonomy!
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 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