[Taxacom] Taxon suffix (for hominids)

Kenneth Kinman kinman at hotmail.com
Thu Nov 5 12:16:03 CST 2015


John,                        Most cladists presently believe that the evidence shows that Gorilla split off first, then Pan, and then Homo (as shown in my classification).  Therefore your Panidae (Gorilla and Pan) would be paraphyletic.  I wish there was good evidence showing Gorilla and Pan form a clade, but I haven't yet seen such evidence published.  
                       ----------------Ken       P.S.  As for the phrase "great apes", it is also now ambiguous.  You don't know if they are talking about Pongo + Gorilla + Pan, or if they are also including Homo in that group (thus making "great apes" a clade).  

Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 10:05:51 -0500
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Taxon suffix (for hominids)
From: calabar.john at gmail.com
To: kinman at hotmail.com
CC: tonyrees49 at gmail.com; zemmo at yahoo.com; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu

Ken,
I am not aware of any other systematist who calls themselves cladists who accept paraphyletic groups as natural groups phylogenetic groups. I refer to 'great apes' all the time without accepting the term to describe a monophyletic group.
As for rearranging the taxa you list, what you say about rearranging is no different from what a cladist would do - that is place the taxa in appropriate monophyletic (not paraphyletic groups). Since I am, but your definition, a strict cladist I presume you consider the proposed Pongidae, Panidae, and Homnidae to be a 'mess'.
One problem with your classification is that it does not present anything other than your opinion on the arrangement - there is no basis given for your preference, presumably based on particular publications that you regard for one reason or another as being more authoritative or that the evidence presented is better substantiated.
John Grehan
On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 8:07 PM, Kenneth Kinman <kinman at hotmail.com> wrote:



John,         I am a cladist, but not a strict cladist (one who automatically rejects all paraphyletic groups).   I haven't looked at great ape phylogeny for a while, so the one I posted in 2009 may be my most recent.  I think Pongidae clades 3-7 (see below) would be what most strict cladists call Subfamily Homininae.  
        Anyway, as I have indicated before,  I still may end up putting Gorilla and Pan in a single clade (3A Gorilla and 3B Pan), instead of separate clades splitting off in succession.  Of course, if your minority viewpoint (orangutan + hominid clade) turned out to be true, I  would just need to rearrange and recode the genera within Pongidae (while the strict cladists would have to start from scratch and a whole new series of messes).                                    --------------------------Ken
     11  Pongidae% (sensu lato)               1 Dryopithecus
               ? Ouranopithecus
               2 Lufengpithecus
               B Sivapithecus
               C Khoratpithecus
               D Pongo
               3 Gorilla
               ? Samburupithecus
               4 Pan
               5 Sahelanthropus
               6 Orrorin
               B Ardipithecus
               7 {{Hominidae}}   

      _a_ Hominidae 
                1 Australopithecus% (sensu lato)
               _a_ Homo  



Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2015 19:37:06 -0500
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Taxon suffix (for hominids)
From: calabar.john at gmail.com
To: kinman at hotmail.com
CC: tonyrees49 at gmail.com; zemmo at yahoo.com; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu

Since Ken makes reference to one of my favorite groups (hominids) I have to say that the molecular people have not made a mess of anything by 'strictly' cladifying ape taxonomy (in fact I am not sure there is such thing as 'strict' cladification - either one is a cladist or one is not I would think). All they have done is select some names for particular molecular clades, with the exception of Humans and older Homo fossils and their nearest non-Homo fossil relatives which cannot yet be linked with living taxa using molecular DNA sequence techniques. Instead of resorting to former paraphyletic arrangements once could, for example use Pongidae (Pongo and inclusive fossil relatives), Panidae (Gorilla and chimpanzee and inclusive fossil relatives), and Hominidae (humans and inclusive fossil relatives). So one would have pongids, panids, and hominids. :)
John Grehan
On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 7:23 PM, Kenneth Kinman <kinman at hotmail.com> wrote:






Hi Tony,       Actually it's even more complicated than that.  The tighter group (excluding chimps, gorillas, etc.) is now sometimes called Subtribe Hominina.  If you say Hominini (much less hominin), I think today most people's eyes just glaze over.  Ever since the molecular people started to strictly cladify the ape taxonomy, they have just made a huge mess of it.

       It would be so much easier to go back to a paraphyletic Family Pongidae% (the percent sign indicating that it is paraphyletic) for the great apes, plus the exgroup Family Hominidae for Homo and its extinct relatives.   Then we would once again know what a person meant when they said hominid or Hominidae.  What we have now is chaos and a lot of glazed-over eyes.  Same goes for Domain or Kingdom Bacteria (if you instead say Eubacteria, then most people will know what you mean).                                         -----------------------Ken -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



> Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 07:26:12 +1100

> From: tonyrees49 at gmail.com

> To: zemmo at yahoo.com

> CC: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu

> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Taxon suffix

>

> Actually there is an error in my post above, anthropologists tend to use

> "hominin" to refer to a member of tribe Hominini, not subfamily Homininae,

> in other words a tighter group which excludes chimpanzees, gorillas, etc.,

> although technically either usage would be correct...

>

> Regards - Tony

>

>

> On 5 November 2015 at 06:30, Tony Rees <tonyrees49 at gmail.com> wrote:

>

> > Hi Alan,

> >

> > Because the scientific names for families (in zoology) all end with -idae

> > (e.g. Canidae: dog family, Hominidae: humans and relatives), you will quite

> > frequently find this transliterated into vernacular name equivalents

> > (canid, hominid, both can be reasonably interpreted as belonging to the

> > equivalent families), the same occasionally for subfamilies which always

> > end in -inae (Homininae -> hominin for example). Sometime you see the same

> > for superfamily (-oidea gets translated to -oid in the vernacular name

> > equivalent), orders may be -ida or -ea (giving -idan, -ean) and more (for

> > example a cetacean belongs to order Cetacea, = whales and their relatives).

> >

> > However there are lots of "popular" cases of -id, -oid, -idan etc. which

> > have not been formed from these bases so it is a possible indication only

> > so far as the reader is concerned, with many exceptions. Also above

> > superfamily, zoological endings are not very standardized, for example

> > "Arachnida" (giving arachnid) is a class, not an order... To confuse things

> > further, botanists use -idae for subclasses, not families, thus a

> > Magnoliid, for example, would be a member of that subclass if it is still

> > recognised...

> >

> > So there is something of a convention rather than a general rule, with

> > many exceptions, special cases, traps for young players, and more, however

> > you may find a core of sense there sometimes...

> >

> > Hope this helps,

> >

> > Regards - Tony

> >

> > Tony Rees, New South Wales, Australia

> > https://about.me/TonyRees

> >

> > On 4 November 2015 at 23:04, alan seegert <zemmo at yahoo.com> wrote:

> >

> >> Is there a generally accepted set of rules used to determine the ending

> >> of various taxa? The -id suffix, for example, as in canid, arachnid, et al.

> >> How about Coleopterid vs Coleopteran. Odonate? Any help or link

> >> appreciated. I have been told that -id is a Family ending, at least in

> >> entomology, but that doesn't seem to hold up.

> >> _______________________________________________

> >> Taxacom Mailing List

> >> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu

> >> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom

> >> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:

> >> http://taxacom.markmail.org

> >>

> >> Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.

> >>

> >

> >

> _______________________________________________

> Taxacom Mailing List

> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu

> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom

> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org

>

> Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.





_______________________________________________

Taxacom Mailing List

Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu

http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom

The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org



Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.


 		 	   		  

 		 	   		  


More information about the Taxacom mailing list