[Taxacom] revised great ape classification

John Grehan calabar.john at gmail.com
Thu Oct 18 05:16:07 CDT 2012

While Ken is, like anyone, free to arrange taxa however he feels, the
arrangement given has no scientific basis since Ken never gives a
systematic account of the evidence involved. Even if one held the orangutan
theory of human origin in contempt (as most evolutionary biologists do), it
is at least based on scientific and testable (contestable) evidence.

I've obtained the Kelley & Gao paper from the author and will render an
opinion in due course. At present I am not sure that any evidence was
presented to demonstrate that the specimen conformed to Lufengpithecus in
the first place (not much spare time at present). And there is also one
feature that is different from all other primates which I found rather
interesting. More on that soon.

John Grehan

On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 11:31 PM, Ken Kinman <kinman at hotmail.com> wrote:

> Dear All,           I've been revising my classification of Family
> Pongidae (sensu lato), and adding more Eurasian genera to reflect the
> growing belief that the extant African ape clade may well have Eurasian
> roots (best known from European fossils, but future discoveries will no
> doubt be made in poorly studied areas of western Asia).
>       Although I recently noted that a 2012 paper (Kelley and Gao)
> suggested removing Lufengpithecus from the orangutan clade (clade 2 below),
> that study was based on a single juvenile specimen, so I am not removing
> that genus from the orangutan clade (at least not at the present time).
>  The placement of genus Ouranopithecus remains particular difficult
> (perhaps closer to Rudapithecus than to Nakalipithecus??).
>      Although I have been suggesting for several years the possibility of
> a Gorilla-Pan clade, I am here coding them in separate, but adjacent
> clades, with the Gorilla clade (clade 5) splitting off first, followed by
> the Pan and Hominidae clades (as is indicated by most molecular data).  And
> clearly I have no intention of abandoning a broad paraphyletic Family
> Pongidae (coded by the paraphyletic symbol %).  Thus I maintain the
> smaller, traditional Family Hominidae (sensu stricto), not the much broader
> Hominidae that most strict cladists have now adopted (with confusing
> subclades including Homininae, Hominini, Hominina, etc.).  Anyway, here is
> my revised classification as it now stands, but suggestions are welcome
> about what other genera should be added, or the placement of those genera
> presently included:
> 11 Pongidae%
>     1A Dryopithecus
>      B Anoiapithecus
>      ? Pierolapithecus
>     2A Hispanopithecus
>      B Lufengpithecus
>      C Sivapithecus
>      D Khoratpithecus
>      E Pongo
>      3 Rudapithecus
>      4 Nakalipithecus
>      ? Samburupithecus
>      ? Ouranopithecus
>      5 Gorilla
>      ? Chororapithecus
>      ? Sahelanthropus
>      6 Pan
>      ? Orrorin
>      7 {{Hominidae}}
> _a_ Hominidae
>      1 Ardipithecus
>      2 Australopithecus% (sensu lato)
>     _a_ Homo
> _______________________________________________
> 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