[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Hominidae expanded!?
Previous classifications using "hominidae" were paraphyletic. Finally, the
definition has changed! I don't know about others, but I'm glad.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Kinman" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 4:19 PM
Subject: Hominidae expanded!?
> I haven't been following primate classification for a while, but I
> never thought the cladists would dump the gorilla and chimpanzees in
> Hominidae. I thought maybe they would recognize separate families for
> gorilla and for chimps, but this really takes me by surprise. I wonder
> the Arizona Tree of Life adopted this?
> Both Family Hominidae and the term hominids has obviously been
> expanded, and all references in the previous literature to hominids and
> pongids is going to be unnecessarily confusing. Come to think of it, they
> will be confusing in all future literature as well, because most workers
> will continue to use Hominidae sensu stricto, and put gorillas and chimps
> Pongidae (as has always been done).
> How depressing.
> ------Ken :-(
> >From: "T. Mike Keesey" <email@example.com>
> >Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> >To: Adam Britton <email@example.com>
> >CC: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> >Subject: Re: Dinosaur Books and Movies
> >Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 01:39:20 -0500 (EST)
> >On Fri, 23 Mar 2001, Adam Britton wrote:
> > > > No, since we're not descended from chimpanzees.
> > >
> > > No but they are close relatives. I was driving at the idea that
> > > anatomical similarities with chimpanzees, orangutans etc, we are still
> > > classed as humans. However, it wasn't a very good example for two
> > > 1. humans descended from a common ancestor with apes and 2. the
> > > was inappropriate: you'll simply point out that we're all still
> > > primates.
> >It's not a single common ancestor, either -- we share a more recent
> >ancestor with the African apes (gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos) than with
> >orangutans, and gibbons are outside the great apes + humans clade.
> > |--Hylobates (gibbons)
> > `--+--Pongo (orangutan)
> > `--Hominidae
> > |--Gorilla (gorillas -- obviously)
> > |--Homo (us)
> > `--Pan (chimpanzees & bonobos)
> >(Or is _Hominidae_ Clade(_Pongo_ + _Homo_)? I can never remember....)
> > > Ok, so we classify "birds" and "dinosaurs" within the "Dinosauria".
> >Still, I
> > > think that modern group of mainly volant, feathered critters should be
> > > within a subgroup "birds" to separate them from another subgroup of
> > > terrestrial, non-feathered critters called "dinosaurs". Hence birds
> > > called "dinosaurs" in the same way that humans can be called
> > > Forgive the simplistic thinking, but personally it helps me (if
> > > else) to create a token division between two groups with quite
> > > ecologies. [that reads like I'm being sarcastic, but I'm not really!]
> >Simplistic or not, that is absolutely correct! Phylogenetic
> >classifications regard _Aves_ as a clade within _Dinosauria_, just as
> >_Homo_ is a clade within _Primates_ (well, not everyone agrees that
> >should be converted to clades, but _Homo_ is within _Primates_
> >nonetheless). It's still a clade, but it isn't separated from its
> >ancestors. (And the modern clade, _Neornithes_, is within _Aves_ -- and
> >hence, by extension, within _Dinosauria_).
> >T. MICHAEL KEESEY
> > Home Page <http://dinosauricon.com/keesey>
> > The Dinosauricon <http://dinosauricon.com>
> > personal <email@example.com> -->
> > Dinosauricon-related <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > AOL Instant Messenger <Ric Blayze>
> > ICQ <77314901>
> > Yahoo! Messenger <Mighty Odinn>
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com