[Taxacom] Reasons for Hominidae, pongidae and Panidae

[John Grehan]

Lumping and splitting are relative to interpretation of degree of
difference. There is no objective authority for deciding between over or
under splitting.

 

 

John Grehan

 

________________________________

From: Stephen Thorpe [mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz] 
Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 12:14 AM
To: Robin Leech; John Grehan; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: Reasons for Hominidae, pongidae and Panidae

 

entomologists can be just as guilty of oversplitting, for example:

http://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Phthirocorinae
2 tribes>6 genera>7 species !

 

 

________________________________

From: Robin Leech <releech at telusplanet.net>
To: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>; John Grehan
<jgrehan at sciencebuff.org>; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Sent: Mon, 20 December, 2010 5:56:40 PM
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
>