[Taxacom] was contamination

[Kenneth Kinman]

Hi Richard,
        I have to disagree with what you wrote if you are saying that
the molecular evidence for the man-chimp is pretty "solid".  I still
think molecular evidence for an exclusive chimp-gorilla clade (with
hominids splitting off before their common ancestor) is strong enough
that more evidence (both molecular and morphological) should be explored
to verify (or discount) that hypothesis.  That is one thing John Grehan
may be correct about.               
      Of course, that certainly does not mean that hominids and
orangutans clade together.  Most everyone agrees that gibbons split off
first, but perhaps the best bet (my hypothesis) is that an orangutan
clade split off next, then a hominid clade, and finally the
chimp-gorilla clade.  This would explain the morphological similarities
of orangtans and hominids (great ape "plesiomorphies" of two adjacent
basal clades).   
        If a lot more attention were paid to proving or disproving an
exclusive chimp-gorilla clade, we might actually get somewhere,  As long
as the chimp-hominid clade is regarded as "solid", there will be
researchers out there challenging that hypothesis if it is not backed up
by strong morphological characters.  I agree with John on that, but I
still doubt that this means orangutans and hominids form an exclusive
clade.      
               --------Ken Kinman              
P.S.  I actually think that studying more genes sequences will help.
But those that will solve the problem will certainly not be single
(often simplistic) indels, but longer SINES or LINES (and especially
combinations thereof).  That's where a well-done study of whole genomes
will most likely convince the vast majority of researchers how the great
apes are cladistically related to one another.  I await such a study
with great anticipation.
              ----------------Ken                         
-------------------------------------------------------
Richard Zander wrote:    
      I think the DNA-based relationship between man, chimp, gorilla,
orang, gibbon is pretty solid. This says nothing about how this
present-day DNA relationship got that way. Don't mix up, John,
present-day relationships with ancestor-descendant relationships. For
all we know, the morphology of all direct ancestors to all these taxa
was that of the gibbon, or man. For those who say, oh, no, this is
improbable, well sure, but how improbable? How do you measure the "oh,
no"? 
Studying more gene sequences won't help. That will just make present-day
DNA relationships more accurate, but will say little about descent with
modification.