kudu runner mentioned this interesting article, believing that it somewhere contradicted
that australopiths were fossil apes, not humans:
kudu runner mentioned this interesting article, believing that it somewhere contradicted that australopiths were fossil apes, not humans:
Expanded character sampling underscores phylogenetic stability of Ardipithecus ramidus as a basal hominin
Carrie S Mongle, David S Strait & Frederick E Grine 2019 JHE 131:28-39.
doi 10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.03.006
Phylogenetic relationships among hominins provide a necessary framework for assessing their evolution.
Reconstructing these relationships hinges on the strength of the character data analyzed.
The phylogenetic position of Ardip.ramidus is critical to understanding early hominin evolution,
- many accept that it is most likely the sister-taxon to all later hominins, >- others have argued that Ar.ramidus was ancestral to Pan.
Although the study by Strait & Grine (2004) suggested the former, available evidence permitted only 26 % of characters in their matrix to be assessed for Ar.ramidus.
Fossils described subsequently by Suwa, White cs (2009) have enabled the nr of characters that can be coded for this species to be expanded to 78 % of the matrix.
Here, we incorporate these new character data, to evaluate their impact on the phylogenetic relationships of Ar.ramidus,
we have further revised the Strait & Grine (2004) matrix as necessitated by additions to the hypodigms of other fossil taxa.
This updated matrix was analyzed (parsimony & Bayesian techniques) in a sequence of 4 iterative steps, to independently evaluate the impact of matrix & expanded character revisions on tree topology.
Despite the new data & matrix revisions, tree topology has remained remarkably stable.
The addition of new cranio-dental material has served to markedly strengthen the support for the placement of Ar.ramidus as
- being derived relative to Sahelanthropus,
- the sister-taxon of all later hominins.
These findings support the phylogenetic hypothesis originally proposed by White cs (1994).
This updated matrix provides a basis for the assessment of additional extinct spp.
____
1) This nowhere contradicts my 1994 & 1996 articles, of course, see below.
2) Papers that use prejudiced terms like "hominin" & "derived" are +-worthless. Logica please!
3) Ardip 5 Ma & even more so Sahelantr c 7 Ma are not far from the HP/G split 7 or 8 Ma.
4) They still assume that BP = "hominin" (but *all* Hominoidea were BP=aquarboreal).
etc.
kudu runner mentioned this interesting article, believing that it somewhere contradicted that australopiths were fossil apes, not humans:
Expanded character sampling underscores phylogenetic stability of Ardipithecus ramidus as a basal hominin
Carrie S Mongle, David S Strait & Frederick E Grine 2019 JHE 131:28-39.
doi 10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.03.006
Phylogenetic relationships among hominins provide a necessary framework for assessing their evolution.
Reconstructing these relationships hinges on the strength of the character data analyzed.
The phylogenetic position of Ardip.ramidus is critical to understanding early hominin evolution,
- many accept that it is most likely the sister-taxon to all later hominins, >- others have argued that Ar.ramidus was ancestral to Pan.
Although the study by Strait & Grine (2004) suggested the former, available evidence permitted only 26 % of characters in their matrix to be assessed for Ar.ramidus.
Fossils described subsequently by Suwa, White cs (2009) have enabled the nr of characters that can be coded for this species to be expanded to 78 % of the matrix.
Here, we incorporate these new character data, to evaluate their impact on the phylogenetic relationships of Ar.ramidus,
we have further revised the Strait & Grine (2004) matrix as necessitated by additions to the hypodigms of other fossil taxa.
This updated matrix was analyzed (parsimony & Bayesian techniques) in a sequence of 4 iterative steps, to independently evaluate the impact of matrix & expanded character revisions on tree topology.
Despite the new data & matrix revisions, tree topology has remained remarkably stable.
The addition of new cranio-dental material has served to markedly strengthen the support for the placement of Ar.ramidus as
- being derived relative to Sahelanthropus,
- the sister-taxon of all later hominins.
These findings support the phylogenetic hypothesis originally proposed by White cs (1994).
This updated matrix provides a basis for the assessment of additional extinct spp.
1) This nowhere contradicts my 1994 & 1996 articles, of course, see below.
Except that it recovers Sahelanthropus, Ardipithecus,
Australopithecus, Paranthropus and Homo as a clade to the exclusion of
Pan and Gorilla, which logically excludes their ancestry to the latter
two. But that's only a minor detail.
2) Papers that use prejudiced terms like "hominin" & "derived" are +-worthless. Logica please!
"Derived" (apomorphic) is a perfectly good evolutionary concept.
As such the wing of Archaeopteryx is derived relative to the forelimb
of nonavian theropods. Or do you think that all nonavian theropod
dinosaurs were flightless birds?
3) Ardip 5 Ma & even more so Sahelantr c 7 Ma are not far from the HP/G split 7 or 8 Ma.
But on the human side of it,
as Mongle, strait & Grine (2019) haveshown with much more data and better methods than you almost 30 years
ago.
4) They still assume that BP = "hominin" (but *all* Hominoidea were BP=aquarboreal).
Recent phylogenetic analysis indeed supports the hypothesis that the combination of a non-honing C-P3 complex and habitual bipedalism is a synapomorphic signature of a hominin clade.
That's not an assumption but an inference.
Except that it recovers Sahelanthropus, Ardipithecus,
Australopithecus, Paranthropus and Homo as a clade to the exclusion of
Pan and Gorilla
Pandora wrote:
Except that it recovers Sahelanthropus, Ardipithecus,
Australopithecus, Paranthropus and Homo as a clade to the exclusion of
Pan and Gorilla
"Oh! It's not me. I'm not doing it. Nobody is, no person. IT is doing it! Not >me. Not us. IT is doing it!"
You won't even take ownership of your own thoughts!
No wonder you're so offended by the good Doctor contradicting the status quo!
kudu runner mentioned this interesting article, believing that it somewhere contradicted that australopiths were fossil apes, not humans:
Expanded character sampling underscores phylogenetic stability of Ardipithecus ramidus as a basal hominin
Carrie S Mongle, David S Strait & Frederick E Grine 2019 JHE 131:28-39.
doi 10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.03.006
Phylogenetic relationships among hominins provide a necessary framework for assessing their evolution.
Reconstructing these relationships hinges on the strength of the character data analyzed.
The phylogenetic position of Ardip.ramidus is critical to understanding early hominin evolution,
- many accept that it is most likely the sister-taxon to all later hominins,
- others have argued that Ar.ramidus was ancestral to Pan.
Although the study by Strait & Grine (2004) suggested the former, available evidence permitted only 26 % of characters in their matrix to be assessed for Ar.ramidus.
Fossils described subsequently by Suwa, White cs (2009) have enabled the nr of characters that can be coded for this species to be expanded to 78 % of the matrix.
Here, we incorporate these new character data, to evaluate their impact on the phylogenetic relationships of Ar.ramidus,
we have further revised the Strait & Grine (2004) matrix as necessitated by additions to the hypodigms of other fossil taxa.
This updated matrix was analyzed (parsimony & Bayesian techniques) in a sequence of 4 iterative steps, to independently evaluate the impact of matrix & expanded character revisions on tree topology.
Despite the new data & matrix revisions, tree topology has remained remarkably stable.
The addition of new cranio-dental material has served to markedly strengthen the support for the placement of Ar.ramidus as
- being derived relative to Sahelanthropus,
- the sister-taxon of all later hominins.
These findings support the phylogenetic hypothesis originally proposed by White cs (1994).
This updated matrix provides a basis for the assessment of additional extinct spp.
1) This nowhere contradicts my 1994 & 1996 articles, of course, see below.
Except that it recovers Sahelanthropus, Ardipithecus,
Australopithecus, Paranthropus and Homo as a clade to the exclusion of
Pan and Gorilla, which logically excludes their ancestry to the latter
two. But that's only a minor detail.
No, it's wrong.
30 yrs ago I already clearly showed in several papers that
- apiths have 0 to do with Homo:
- E.Afr.afar.->boisei were G, not HP,
- S.Afr.afric.->robustus were P, not H & certainly not G.
And all more recent infm has confirmed this.
Ardip & Sahelantr have 0 to do with this. Zero:
I was referring this paper:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.03.006
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 303 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 71:11:38 |
| Calls: | 6,804 |
| Files: | 12,325 |
| Messages: | 5,399,745 |