[Taxacom] Reasons for Hominidae, pongidae and Panidae
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Sun Dec 19 23:14:25 CST 2010
entomologists can be just as guilty of oversplitting, for example:
2 tribes>6 genera>7 species !
From: Robin Leech <releech at telusplanet.net>
To: Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>; John Grehan
<jgrehan at sciencebuff.org>; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Sent: Mon, 20 December, 2010 5:56:40 PM
Subject: Reasons for Hominidae, pongidae and Panidae
Stephen and John,
Mammalogists and ornithologists have ways of doing just that. I have always
felt that they have so few organisms to work with that they need a more spread
out classification. It is their way to keep busy and employed.
Ever notice how many museums will have 2 mammalogists, 2 ornithologists,
but only 1 entomologist or arthropodologist?
Check out the Ichneumonids and Braconids some time. The problems that the
hymenopterists have who study these families is that they are running out of
below the family level for all the multi-subfamilies, etc., to accommodate the
of genera and species. Kinda like what occurs in some beetle families such as
I can see establishing a new subordinal level, such as Ichneumonia, and that
upping of the superfamily Ichneumonoidea one level. This upping is being done
to open up the family and subfamily groups.
Of course, you can look at the Hominid-Pongid-Panid situation as an attempt to
place humans, whether subconscious or not, as far away as possible from apes and
ape ancestors in order to have humans and Hominidae with their own ancestries -
no big root going back to ape ancestors. And so the Creationists are pleased.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephen Thorpe" <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
To: "John Grehan" <jgrehan at sciencebuff.org>; <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2010 9:09 PM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Usefulness vs. convenience (Protista)
> >under the cladistic scheme of Schwartz and Grehan it is Pongidae for
>> Panidae for African apes and Hominidae for humans. Nothing confusing about
> No, but it is way too oversplit - 3 families for 4 extant genera!
> From: John Grehan <jgrehan at sciencebuff.org>
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Sent: Mon, 20 December, 2010 3:45:13 PM
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Usefulness vs. convenience (Protista)
> I don't see any confusion with taxonomic labels so long as one knows the
> phylogeny to which it is appended - whether or not one is a cladist.
> As for Pongidae - under the cladistic scheme of Schwartz and Grehan it is
> Pongidae for orangutans, Panidae for African apes and Hominidae for humans.
> Nothing confusing about that.
> John Grehan
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these
> (1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
> Or (2) a Google search specified as: site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom
>your search terms here
More information about the Taxacom