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

I used to lament...

...that there were no cladistic analyses of human relationships. Well,
fortunately I was wrong. Just for the record...

D. W. Cameron: Early hominin speciation at the Plio/Pleistocene transition,
HOMO 54/1, 1 -- 28 (2003)

72 craniofacial characters, unfortunately all unordered, even when they have
a state called "intermediate".

Strict consensus of all 8 MTPs:

`--+--*Pan troglodytes* (chimp)
   |--*Pan paniscus* (bonobo)
      |--*Australopithecus anamensis*
      |--*A. anamensis*
      |--*A. afarensis*
      |--*A. garhi*
      `--+--*A. africanus*
         `--+--+--*Kenyanthropus rudolfensis*
            |  `--+--*K. platyops*
            |     `--+--*Paranthropus walkeri* (I thought *aethiopicus*)?
            |        `--+--*P. robustus*
            |           `--*P. boisei*
            `--+--*Homo habilis*
               `--+--*H. sapiens*
                  `--+--*H. ergaster*
                     `--*H. erectus*

In the 50 % majority-rule consensus of all trees within 2.5 % of the MPTs
( = up to 7 steps longer), the two *Kenyanthropus* species form a polytomy
with *Paranthropus* and *Homo*, the rest stays identical. Cameron favors the
introduction of the name *Praeanthropus* for *Ardipithecus* and all
*Australopithecus* species except the type (*A. africanus*).