Aron-Ra
Senior Veteran
- Jul 3, 2004
- 4,571
- 393
- 62
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
Cirbryn said:
But we're not talking about colloquial terms. We're talking about evolutionary phylogenies. Cladistic terminology must be monophyletic! So you can't have multiple Linnaean classes. Instead, you're limited to derived synapomorphies. That means the only way you can define anything is by a complete character analysis; characters common to every member without exception.
I didn't realize your mission was to defend 18th century practice against the new way.
Fine. The only thing wrong with the Linnaean system is that it isn't structured to accomidate evolutionary phylogenies because the system was devised with no knowledge of evolution or palaeontology. Cladistics is just Linnaean taxonomy reconfigured to take inheritence from fossil forms into account.
Earlier, you said the Linnaean system categorized humans as Hominids and Old World monkeys as Cercopithecidae, a separate group. But they are not. Hominidae is nested within Propliopithecoidea, which is also nested alongside Cercopicidae within Catarrhini; both groups are within the clade of Old World monkeys.
My mistake. I misread where you accused Edx of trivializing the similarities between us and apes, monkeys and fish. However, if you define each class precisely, you'll also describe humans every time.
True. The subspecies he described were limited to
Homo sapiens Africanus nigrus (black African human being),
Homo sapiens Americanus rubescens (red American human being),
Homo sapiens Asiaticus fuscusens (brownish Asian human being), and
Homo sapiens Europaeus albescens (white European human being)
And how he described each group leaves an awful lot to be desired too.
But when talking about the inclusion of other apes, his system was inconsistent. Homo troglodytes weren't only such species. He also classified orangutans as humans, Homo nocturnis, and changed his description of us as needed, occasionally describing sapiens as Homo diurnis, or "man of the day".
And that goes back to the real problem with Linnaean taxonomy; its subjective. Its sometimes based on morphological similarity, and sometimes based only on opinion, and often loathsome ones at that. There's no way to prove whether he classified anything incorrectly because he didn't do so according to a rigid set of rules such as the Cladist system has.
It seems that my real fight here is with Wikipedia. But I've already been round and round with them over this. I've corrected both of these terms at least twice, with substantial backing to prove the point each time. But where this subject is concerned, they've rejected peer-review without discussion. Each time I post a correction, they just press a button to revert to their original idea with no further comment. Getting onto their discussion boards is just a matter of butting heads. I know because I've already tried that too. But their definitions here are wrong and they're simply not ready to admit that.
Haplorhini is more accurately defined thus: Starting with the template structure of the parent clade, Anthropoidea (primates), the basic division is between the wet-nosed set, Strepsirrhini, and the dry-nosed set, Haplorhini. The latter being further "characterized by a loss of rhinarium, closed orbit, simplex uterus, spatulate incisors, and no tapetum lucidum (reflective layer of retina).
Haplorhini is synonemous with "monkey" because it consists of only tarsiers and all other monkeys, further divided into two different sub-classifications. If tarsiers are themselves not universally considered to be monkeys, then this may be why the Arizona Tree of Life project recognizes their sister clade, Strepsirhini, but does not mention Haplorhini at all. Sadly, they don't take Propliopithecoidea into consideration either, and consequently still categorize Old World monkeys as Cercopithecids exclusively. Had they included Propliopithecids, then they would be forced to catergorize humans within "Old World monkeys", and accidentally insult any readers who misinterpret that. Doubtless, that is Wikipedia's problem too since they adamantly refused to permit any mention of Propliopithecids in any of their phylogentic trees.
Now, getting back to the point: Whether tarsiers can be considered monkeys, or if Tarsii should be considered a separate clade from monkeys, either way, our ancestors weren't from the Tarsii lineage. And there is no other option but that we descended from creatures who would have been recognized as monkeys both cladistically and traditionally.
Drawing on the synapomorphies of Strepsirhines and Platyrrhines, we see that the New World monkeys are actually representative of the more primitive of our own ancestors, who once looked very much like them. We are all primates with a dry nose, binocular vision, a pendulous penis, a well-developed caecum, only two pectoral mammae, a tendancy toward bipedalism, and a larger brain than our parent or sister clades. All taxonomic traits are in relation to the parent or sister clades. They have to be. There's no other way to do it.
Propliopithecids were also very similar to Cercopithecids. Both were/are "weak-tailed" (non-prehensile), snub-tailed, or entirely tailless Old World monkeys -just like us. Where mention of Propliopithecids is tolerated, there is no debate over thier classification as Catarrhines. Like us, they fit all the criteria to be a generalized monkey (Haplorhini) and they bare the additional traits of downturned nostrils and flat fingernails instead of claws and other traits exclusive of all Old World monkeys, rather than just Cercopithecids. And, lest we forget, the template onto which we list the characters of all apes is that of Old World monkeys.
Like I said, if you can show me another system of classification that can take everything into account instead of ignoring evolutionary phylogeny and whole taxonomic superfamilies, then I'm anxious to see it. But I'm betting you can't disassociate humans from their monkey ancestry, and that you're already beginning to realize that.
Upvote
0