[Taxacom] Hominoid classification (was: incertae sedis)

[Kenneth Kinman]

John,
       I don't know if you are trying bait me into one of your arguments
or if you haven't read the original articles which actually described
and named Nakalipithecus and Chororapithecus.  The paper on the original
description (and naming) of Nakalipithecus discusses its similarity to
Ouranopithecus , and suggests that Nakalipithecus is close to what might
be regarded as the immediate ancestor to the Gorilla-Pan-Hominid clade.
Ouranopithecus (which they regard as a bit more derived) could arguably
be sister group of Nakalipithecus, an exgroup of genus Nakalipithecus,
or part of the gorilla-chimp-hominid clade.  One paper even suggested
Ouranopithecus is close to the Australopithecus-Homo clade (my Family
Hominidae), but that is perhaps a bit of a stretch in that it is mainly
based on evidence from milk teeth.         
       And also note that the paper which originally described and named
Chororapithecus suggested that it could very well be a basal member of
the gorilla clade.       
       So are you suggesting that I ignore the opinions of those
paleontogists who carefully studied and named those new genera, and
instead follow your interpretation?  Thick molar enamel in particular,
which you frequently cite, is probably very labile evolutionarily
(depending on diet, which can easily and quickly shift).  
       So I"m afraid I have to go with the paleontologists who named and
have carefully studied these fossils.  Your concerns with the thickness
of tooth enamel in hominoid evolution seem to be too heavily weighted in
my opinion.  I like to look at a broader range of data and weight them
differently.     
        As for whether more fossil material is the solution, it only
takes one unusually complete specimen at the right place
(phylogenetically) to clarify which characters are synapomorphic and
which are plesiomorphic.  Don't underestimate the value of such special
fossils just because they cannot yield molecular evidence.  Of course,
we are more likely to get results from whole genome analysis before we
get lucky enough to stumble such rare special fossils.  
          -------Ken Kinman       

--------------------------------------------------------
John Grehan wrote: 
       As noted in the past, I have no objections to Ken expressing his
opinion about his preferred classification, but in the absence of
supporting evidence also being presented, the classification is
scientifically meaningless. 
Chororapithecus has nothing definitively gorilla, and contradictorily
the molars have thick enamel!                
          I have not seen any evidence that Ouranopithecus and
Nakalipithecus are closely related. I would be interested to know what
Ken would cite in support that would place Ouranopithecus closer to
Nakalipithecus than various other orangutan relatives as demonstrated by
Grehan & Schwartz (2009). 
         More fossil material is not the solution in of itself. Early
hominids (australopiths) for example, clearly have orangutan as well as
human-orangutan apomorphies, but no one wants to recognize that reality. 
        A whole genome analysis isn't going to accomplish anything for
fossil hominids of course.