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

John Grehan calabar.john at gmail.com
Mon Oct 15 15:51:26 CDT 2012


Thanks Ken. I will take a look, although my list concerns the direct
consideration of the orangutan evidence. John

On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Ken Kinman <kinman at hotmail.com> wrote:

>  Hi John,
>          Thanks.  I noticed that your list of recent publications on the
> subject does not include Kelley and Gao, 2012.  Their study concluded that
> Lufengpithecus was not a member of an orangutan clade, but rather on the
> stem leading to chimps, gorillas, and hominids.  I only have access to the
> abstract, but I wonder if they discuss your paper or not.  Here is a
> weblink to the abstract:
>
>
> http://www.pnas.org/content/109/18/6882.abstract?sid=3f3c2c88-8eb4-4a7c-aee8-880946caa3b0
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 08:20:17 +1300
>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Morphological molecular reconciliation again (was
> erecting or sinking higher taxa
> From: calabar.john at gmail.com
> To: kinman at hotmail.com
> CC: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>
>
> Ken,
>
> Yes. I did not realize you had not seen the paper. You can download it
> from http://www.johngrehan.net/index.php/human-evolution/
>
> I need to post the supplementary appendices as well. Perhaps tonight.
>
> John Grehan
>
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 7:17 AM, Ken Kinman <kinman at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>  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