[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Hominidae revised (new classification) and Re: Dumb Names



> > [...]
> > (and where does _Kenyapithecus_ go? _Proconsul_?

Not much of an idea...

> > Any I've left out?)

sure... :-(

> That's "Kenyanthropus"; I thought it was kenyapithecus too.

*Kenyanthropus* is new, according to

>   http://www.nature.com/nature/links/010322/010322-1.html

(hey, this lets me into full text, even though I don't have a subscription!)
and

>  http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6827/fig_tab/410419a0_F2.html

while *Kenyapithecus* is an older, longer known, much more basal form.

>  http://www.tamu.edu/anthropology/news.html

Impressive site...

http://www.nature.com/nature/links/010322/010322-1.html on classification:

"We agree with the taxonomically conservative, grade-sensitive approach to
hominin classification that for the moment accepts *Australopithecus* as a
paraphyletic genus in which are clustered stem species sharing a suite of
key primitive features, such as a small brain, strong subnasal prognathism,
and relatively large postcanine teeth."

and:

"Despite being separated by about 1.5 Myr, KNM-WT 40000 is very similar in
its facial architecture to KNM-ER 1470, the lectotype of *H. rudolfensis*.
The main differences amount to the more primitive nasal and neurocranial
morphology of KNM-WT 40000. This raises the possibility that there is a
close phylogenetic relationship between the two taxa, and affects our
interpretation of *H. rudolfensis*. The transfer of this species to
*Australopithecus* has been recommended, but *Kenyanthropus* may be a more
appropriate genus. The identification of *K. platyops* has a number of
additional implications. As a species contemporary with *A. afarensis* that
is more primitive in some of its morphology, *K. platyops* weakens the case
for *A. afarensis* being the sister taxon of all later hominins, and thus
its proposed transfer to *Praeanthropus*."

> > PLEASE let us know if this is getting too off-topic!!
>
> I think that point was reached a long time ago!

Erm, yeah, but it seems to be of interest for many list members and concerns
some dinosaur-relevant issues of classification.