[Taxacom] Hominoid classification (was: incertae sedis)

[John Grehan]

Ken,

If 'baiting' is to ask for the evidence then sure. And why not? Its not
enough (if you are interested in other taking note of your choices) to
say that this is the classification I accept just because someone said
so. And just because someone says there are some similarities between
this or that does not mean that the similarities are authoritative in
any way. You are selective enough in ignoring the cladistic evidence
that places, for example, Ouranopithecus with Pongo and a larger clade
of other fossil taxa. Nothing wrong with that, but if you are making
choices and wish to proclaim them, then explain your choice. Otherwise
the choice has no scientific meaning - in my opinion. Ok - now you
mention that you think it's a bit of a stretch for a link between
Ouranopithecus and the Australopithecus clade based on milk teeth (I may
have missed that one so I would be interested in the citation), but why
should it be a bit of a stretch and what about the other features that
do place it with orangutans and their fossil relatives?

Yes the original paper did suggest Chororapithecus could be a member of
the gorilla clade. But on what basis to you accept that claim? Its just
a claim based on what the authors present as evidence - which in my
opinion is pretty much phylogenetically uninformative. They noted some
similarities, but none were shown to be definitive of gorilla or gorilla
and Cororapithecus. 

The nub of your view is that I am "suggesting that I ignore the opinions
of those paleontologists who carefully studied and named those new
genera, and instead follow your interpretation?" Paleontologists are not
prophets just because they study and name fossils. They have no greater
insight than anyone else with respect to the stated evidence. My
'interpretations" (as opposed to other 'interpretations' (after all they
are all interpretations) are based on the evidence documented by those
paleontologists who "carefully studies and named those genera" or other
paleontologists who also studied the named genera.

Thick molar enamel is just one character. Whether it is labile as you
say remains to be seen. By my analyses are more than just molar enamel
as shown in my 2009 paper.

Your decision to "go with the paleontologists who named and have
carefully studied these fossils" is your decision, but in the absence of
stating how their evidence is falsifies other evidence your choice is a
personal opinion that carries no scientific weight - in my opinion.

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: Thursday, April 28, 2011 10:35 PM
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Hominoid classification (was: incertae sedis)

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. 


_______________________________________________

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) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org

(2) a Google search specified as:
site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here