[Taxacom] New molecular propaganda on primate systematics

[John Grehan]

It only 'confirms' previous results with the same kind of evidence. So
it's not disappointing at all, as one would not expect anything
different.

I did not say or suggest that their finding of a Gorilla-Pan-Homo clade
was propaganda.

More data does not necessarily mean more precision. 

The propaganda was not about the orangutan. It was about the claims made
- such as the human genome project revolutionizing various fields (but
no citations), that it la lacks of formal evolutionary context, that
molecular resolution is the only way to do that, that current views are
only those of Cretaceous boundary origins, that primate taxonomy from
non-molecular sources is "complex" (as if molecular is not), that
earlier molecular studies are flowed but this study is not, that
insights such as from this paper are essential for etc. etc. without
explaining how, that tarsiers are an ancient lineage whereas their
sistergroup is not, that colonization of Madagascar by primates is
post-58.6 MYA.

So while I may be sent to be obsessed with the orangutan origin I made
not references to propaganda in that specific instance. In fact I was
courteous to note that the authors gave implicit recognition to its
existence and that this was a measure of the authors' integrity.

The tarsier link with anthropoids is not morphologically sustainable.
The morphological features claimed to support that view have been shown
in the literature to be incorrect. The morphology puts tarsiers with
other prosimians, either as a sistergroup, or more likely as a
sistergroup o a loris/galago clade. This is a project I am currently
working on.

John Grehan



-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
[mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Kenneth Kinman
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2011 11:29 PM
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] New molecular propaganda on primate systematics

Hi John, 
      Well, I will admit that this study is not the "comprehensive"
genome comparison for which I am still waiting.  But still, it does seem
to confirm the view that the Gorilla-Pan-Homo clade is very tight-knit
(with Pongo the odd man out).  But although this is no doubt a
disappoint to John, that does not make it propaganda.     
      What I find interesting is that the Gorilla-Pan-Homo clade (a
virtual trichotomy) is so closely knit that that this study cannot
clearly show strong evidence that Pan is definitely closer to Homo than
it is to Gorilla. It wlll take a much more comprehensive, genome-wide,
analysis to cladify that trichotomy with more precision.  I really hope
that such an analysis is not only in the works, but will be published
before the end of 2011.  But I suppose John will brand such a study as
propaganda as well if it still shows orangutans as the odd man out among
great apes.  In any case, it should be interesting to see what the
broader evidence shows.    
               ----------Ken Kinman
       


_______________________________________________

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