kinman2 at YAHOO.COM
Thu Jan 22 18:26:11 CST 2004
As many of you know, I usually have a pretty
strong opinion about debates like this, either one way
or the other. In this case, I am still on the fence
(although if I HAD to make a decision today, I would
admittedly probably have to continue coding a
chimp-human clade rather than the orangutan-human
alternative). Luckily I don't have to make such a
decision anytime soon.
What bothers me most (as it apparently does John
as well) is the paucity of explicit morphological
synapomorphies for a chimp-human clade. Although I
must admit the molecular evidence seems rather
convincing (from what very little I personally have
had time to examine), the lack of rigorous cladistic
analysis on the morphological side is very disturbing.
Anyway, I still haven't ruled out the
possibility that a "chimp-human" clade and an
"orangutan-human" clade are BOTH wrong, and that
Hominidae split off between an "orangutan" clade and a
"gorilla-chimp" clade. I am truly undecided at this
point in this case. I wish I had more time to study
it in detail myself, but I will nevertheless be
watching the debate carefully as it unfolds.
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
More information about the Taxacom