Study: Chimps Belong In Human Genus

[Ken Kinman]

Dear All,
      I agree with Mike Keesey that paleoanthropologists (in particular)
would never accept such extreme lumping (Pan within Homo).  The study of
human origins is (naturally) so closely scrutinized that a certain amount of
splitting is to be expected.
     That said, I am still in favor of lumping several named genera into a
broad paraphyletic Australopithecus, but this latest suggestion of a super
broad genus Homo carries lumping to an absurd extreme.   However, with the
cladistic expansion of Family Hominidae (sometimes even including gibbons),
I guess it isn't too surprising the someone would eventually propose lumping
Pan with Homo.  I personally still prefer a paraphyletic Family Pongidae,
with Family Hominidae restricted to Homo, Australopithecus, and allies.
     Anyway, the genus Pan was named by Oken in 1816, so we have almost two
centuries of literature referring to chimps under that name.  It was
proposed back in the 1970's that the generic name Chimpansee (sic,
Chimpansee with an "s, named in the 1830's) should replace Pan, but I
believe that the ICZN placed Pan Oken, 1816 on the Official List of Generic
Names (correct me if I recall the conclusion of that case incorrectly).
      But that nomenclatural debate aside, it is important that we not
overblow the similarities between chimps and humans and then have to
backtrack when their whole genomes are better known.  That would be bad
enough, but if there is anything to the orangutan-human clade (discussed
here recently), it would be even more embarrassing.  Transferring chimps to
genus Homo is frankly a dumb idea just about any way you look at, even from
a scientific perspective (not to mention the potential inflammatory
consequences it could have from a religious standpoint).  Such a move has
many disadvantages, and no clear advantages to offer.
         ------ Cheers, Ken Kinman

P.S.  As for a third ("fourth") form of chimp, isn't that generally referred
to as Pan troglodytes koolakamba?  If so, it isn't anything new, and very
likely not of species status (perhaps not even a valid subspecies).  Perhaps
more interesting would be if it turned out to be a hybrid, chimp X gorilla.
I would suspect a Pan x Gorilla hybrid would be more likely than a Pan x
Homo hybrid, but who knows.  If so, even more reason not to lump Pan with
Homo.
*****************************************
>From: "T. Michael Keesey" <mightyodinn at YAHOO.COM>
>Reply-To: "T. Michael Keesey" <mightyodinn at YAHOO.COM>
>To: TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG
>Subject: Re: Study: Chimps Belong In Human Genus
>Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 11:30:08 -0700
>
>--- 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

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus