Re: Paraphyly of apes

T. Mike Keesey (
Thu, 12 Dec 1996 11:00:54 -0500

On Thu, 12 Dec 1996 wrote:

> In article <> you wrote:
> : Does anyone have any references for the idea that apes as a group are
> : paraphyletic, with some closer to humans than others? Specifically
> : something along the lines of:
> : ((gibbons, siamangs), (orangutans, (gorillas, chimps, humans)))
> : And for my own curiosity: How would this idea affect the names of
> : supergeneric taxa among Hominoidea?
> Try _Systematics of the Great Apes_ Colin P. Groves
> Comparitive Primate Biology, Volume 1: Systematics, Evolution, and Anatomy
> pp. 187-217


> In it he sinks the Homididae to subfamily status in the pongidae

I believe Hominidae would have precedence over Pongidae ...

> Also, check out some of Jared Diamond's arguements for sinking _Homo_ into
> _Pan_. A good place to start is the book _The Third Chimpanzee_

I looked it over once. It's _Pan_ he sinks into _Homo_. Should've called
the book "The Third Human".

It's an interesting proposal, but I think he's taking things a little too
far. We may be fairly similar genetically to chimps, but we aren't close
to being able to interbreed, even to produce sterile offspring (last I
heard). Also, including the chimps under _Homo_ leaves absolutely no room
to let the classification reflect the relationships of all creatures
closer to humans than to chimps (australopithecines, etc.)

AFAICS, the best classification would go thusly:


Has something like this been published?

-T. Mike Keesey
Author of the
Dinosaurs and Art and Dinosaur Art
3D Animation! Kubrick in Simpsons