[Taxacom] Morphological molecular reconciliation again (was erecting or sinking higher taxa

Ken Kinman kinman at hotmail.com
Mon Oct 15 13:17:59 CDT 2012


Hi John,       Is a PDF available for Grehan and Schwartz (2009)?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 05:59:32 -0400
> From: calabar.john at gmail.com
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Morphological molecular reconciliation again (was erecting or sinking higher taxa
> 
> If? One sometimes wonders why bother publishing at all as it sometimes
> seems as if no one bothers to read the content. In Grehan and Schwartz
> (2009) is the following: "The genus [Lufengpithecus] shares with Pongo and
> Sivapithecus rim-like supraorbital margins, a small and triangular nasal
> aperture, tall, anteriorly facing and flattened zygomas, a
> broadly spatulate first upper incisor that is markedly larger than
> the subconical second upper incisor, and a superiorly expanded maxillary
> sinus"
> 
> So, with the current knowledge Lufengpithecus does fall within an orangutan
> clade (see Fig. 2d) without making the clade paraphyletic. Given the
> present evidence it is certainly not true that Lufengpithecus could "easily
> be an extinct clade" which split off between the orangutan clade and the
> African ape clade that included humans.
> 
> I agree with the need for more fossils since there are taintalizing
> fragments such as the isolated so-called 'Australopithecus' teeth with
> orangutan characteristics, and the inadequate material for Orrorin,
> Ankarapithecus, Ouranopithecus etc.
> 
> John Grehan
> 
> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 10:42 PM, Ken Kinman <kinman at hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> >
> > Dear All,      If you expand the orangutan clade to include
> > Lufengpithecus, then I would agree that it is probably paraphyletic.
> >  However, not all workers include Lufengpithecus in the orangutan clade.
> >  It could easily be an extinct clade which split off between the orangutan
> > clade and the "African ape" clade (man, chimps, and gorillas).
> >       If so, perhaps we should expect to find Lufengpithecus further west
> > in Asia, along with early members of the "African ape" clade.  As always,
> > more fossils are always needed, and just one lucky discovery could
> > radically change our understanding of Hominoid evolution.  In any case, I
> > am still betting that the morphologies shared by orangutans and hominids
> > are symplesiomorphic (not synapomorphic as John believes).  I am far less
> > certain whether chimps are closer to hominids or to gorillas.
> >                                  --------------------Ken
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2012 11:45:43 -0700
> > > From: lists at curtisclark.org
> > > To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Morphological molecular reconciliation again (was
> > erecting or sinking higher taxa
> > >
> > > On 2012-10-14 9:25 AM, John Grehan wrote:
> > > > Richard's conclusion is only possible by saying that the morpogenetic
> > > > evidence is wrong (i.e. throwing it out). And I did mention in my
> > response
> > > > an explanation for the molecular evidence being wrong in this case -
> > that
> > > > the molecular evidence result has been negatively affected by the
> > presence
> > > > of unrecognized plesiomorphies (due to the phenetic nature of character
> > > > state determination and analysis).
> > >
> > > If I'm understanding Richard, he's hypothesizing that orangutans are a
> > > grade, that was at one time widespread, and that gave rise to chimps,
> > > bonobos, mountain and lowland gorillas, and humans, without itself being
> > > transformed by anagenesis. Those orangs that gave rise to humans had
> > > previously given rise to chimps, and so there would be expected to be
> > > strong molecular similarities between humans, chimps, and the extinct
> > > orang subgroup that gave rsie to them. But those orangs still share
> > > morphological features with the SE Asian orangs, and those features were
> > > less changed when humans speciated than when chimps, bonobos, or
> > > gorillas speciated. So the orang-human morphological similarities can
> > > appear to be symplesiomorphies relative to chimps, bonobos, and
> > > gorillas, while at the same time being evidence of close relationship.
> > >
> > > Richard, am I on the right track?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Curtis Clark        http://www.csupomona.edu/~jcclark
> > > Biological Sciences                   +1 909 869 4140
> > > Cal Poly Pomona, Pomona CA 91768
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > >
> > > 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> > 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 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
 		 	   		  


More information about the Taxacom mailing list