[Taxacom] Reasons for Hominidae, pongidae and Panidae

[John Grehan]

Well I guess one may always ascribe motives of separatness, but in this case my preference is in reference to quite a range of fossil taxa, some of which appear to be more closely related to orangutans and some to humans. Quite a number of both are given generic designations and quite a few are monotypic or nearly so.
 
John Grehan

________________________________

From: Robin Leech [mailto:releech at telusplanet.net]
Sent: Sun 12/19/2010 11:56 PM
To: Stephen Thorpe; John Grehan; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Reasons for Hominidae, pongidae and Panidae



Stephen and John,

Mammalogists and ornithologists have ways of doing just that.  I have always
felt that they have so few organisms to work with that they need a more
spread
out classification. It is their way to keep busy and employed.

Ever notice how many museums will have 2 mammalogists, 2 ornithologists,
but only 1 entomologist or arthropodologist?

Check out the Ichneumonids and Braconids some time.  The problems that the
hymenopterists have who study these families is that they are running out of
space
below the family level for all the multi-subfamilies, etc., to accommodate
the gazillions
of genera and species.  Kinda like what occurs in some beetle families such
as weevils.
I can see establishing a new subordinal level, such as Ichneumonia, and that
being the
upping of the superfamily Ichneumonoidea one level.  This upping is being
done in order
to open up the family and subfamily groups.

Of course, you can look at the Hominid-Pongid-Panid situation as an attempt
to
place humans, whether subconscious or not, as far away as possible from apes
and
ape ancestors in order to have humans and Hominidae with their own
ancestries - i.e.,
no big root going back to ape ancestors.  And so the Creationists are
pleased.

Robin

----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
To: "John Grehan" <jgrehan at sciencebuff.org>; <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2010 9:09 PM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Usefulness vs. convenience (Protista)


> >under the cladistic scheme of Schwartz and Grehan it is Pongidae for
> >orangutans,
>>Panidae for African apes and Hominidae for humans. Nothing confusing about
>>that
>
> No, but it is way too oversplit - 3 families for 4 extant genera!
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: John Grehan <jgrehan at sciencebuff.org>
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Sent: Mon, 20 December, 2010 3:45:13 PM
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Usefulness vs. convenience (Protista)
>
> I don't see any confusion with taxonomic labels so long as one knows the
> phylogeny to which it is appended - whether or not one is a cladist.
>
> As for Pongidae - under the cladistic scheme of Schwartz and Grehan it is
> Pongidae for orangutans, Panidae for African apes and Hominidae for
> humans.
> Nothing confusing about that.
>
> John Grehan
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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 <http://taxacom.markmail.org/> 
>
> Or (2) a Google search specified as:
> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
>