Re: Paraphyly of apes
T. Mike Keesey (tmkeesey@wam.umd.edu)
Thu, 12 Dec 1996 11:00:54 -0500
On Thu, 12 Dec 1996 puppydog@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca wrote:
> In article <Pine.SOL.3.95.961210152148.22317B-100000@rac6.wam.umd.edu> 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
Thanks
> 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:
Hominoidea
_Hylobatidae
_(unnamed)
__Pongidae
___Gigantopithecus
___Pongo
__Hominidae
___Gorilla
___Pan
___Homininae
____Australopithecus
____Homo
Has something like this been published?
-T. Mike Keesey
tmkeesey@wam.umd.edu
Author of the
DINOSAUR WEB PAGES
http://www.wam.umd.edu/~tmkeesey
Dinosaurs and Art and Dinosaur Art
3D Animation! Kubrick in Simpsons
|