Study: Chimps Belong In Human Genus

[T. Michael Keesey]

--- Barry Roth <barry_roth at YAHOO.COM> wrote:
> At this link and others:
>
> http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20030519/chimp.html
>
> Gosh!  I liked it better when we were the Third Chimpanzee.

Or possibly the fourth:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/04/0414_030314_strangeape.html

> "Genera" are all about spin, aren't they?

On the Dinosaur Mailing List, there's a running joke about using a
"genericometer" to tell when two species are diffrent enough to place in
different genera. Of course, it's a subjective decision.

So how can they claim that this is evidence that chimps belong in the same
genus as humans? What objective criterion is there? If it's genetic similarity,
then genera should be able to overlap (and be paraphyletic).

> So, if chimpanzees and humans are congeneric, don't australopithecines have
> to be congeneric with us too, to avoid paraphyly?

Yes, goodbye to _Australopithecus_, _Ardipithecus_, _Orrorin_, _Paranthropus_
... I don't see this idea ever getting too popular with
paleoanthropologists....

> Is Pan a Linnaean name?  If so, and it is synonymous with Homo, who is the
> first reviser with regard to which is the valid name?

IIRC, Linnaeus' Primates (equivalent to modern-day Archonta) was originally
divided into four genera: _Vespertilio_, _Lemur_, _Simia_, and _Homo_, and
_troglodytes_ was originally placed in _Homo_ (then later in _Simia_, then
given its own genus, _Pan_; _paniscus_ added later). Therefore, no revision
would be necessary for _troglodytes_, only _paniscus_.


=====
=====> T. Michael Keesey <keesey at bigfoot.com>
=====> The Dinosauricon <http://dinosauricon.com>
=====> BloodySteak <http://bloodysteak.com>
=====> Instant Messenger <Ric Blayze>
=====

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com