Re: CHAT Almost well-formed southern ape (wasRe: Teknonyms)
|From:||Jörg Rhiemeier <joerg_rhiemeier@...>|
|Date:||Thursday, November 3, 2005, 21:06|
Andreas Johansson wrote:
> Quoting Wesley Parish <wes.parish@...>:
> > On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 11:43, Andreas Johansson wrote:
> > [...]
> > > Well, that's fine for Australopithecus africanus, A. afarensis, A.
> > > bahrelghazali and A. aethiopicus, but not for A. anamensis, A. robustus, A.
> > > garhi, and A. boisei.
> > >
> > > (The splittists would place aethiopicus, robustus, and boisei in the
> > > separate genus Paranthropus.)
> > Judging from the two facts that aethiopicus, robustos, and boisei had
> > decidedly different dentition and eating habits from the gracile
> > australopithecines that became genus homo, and also they appear to have left
> > no descendants, I would say the splittists are right. Paranthropus -
> > near-human - would appear to be right.
> I quite agree, but at least in semipopular literature, the lumpist approach is
> usually taken.
A common objection against Paranthropus is that it is not safely
established that these species form a single branch of the tree
and thus constitute a valid taxon (though the majority of scholars
assume that they do). But if you ask me, I am fairly pro-Paranthropus.