The hominin fossil record: taxa, grades and clades

[S. L. Wang]

A paper of interest from the Symposium on 'Human evolution: ancestors and relatives', held in St Anne’s College, Oxford last winter.

Enjoy,
-Steve

The hominin fossil record: taxa, grades and clades
Bernard Wood and Nicholas Lonergan
J. Anat. 212 (4):  354 – 376,  April 2008

Abstract:
This paper begins by reviewing the fossil evidence for human evolution. It presents summaries of each of the taxa recognized in a relatively speciose hominin taxonomy. These taxa are grouped in grades, namely possible and probable hominins, archaic hominins, megadont archaic hominins, transitional hominins, pre-modern Homo and anatomically modern Homo. The second part of this contribution considers some of the controversies that surround hominin taxonomy and systematics. The first is the vexed question of how you tell an early hominin from an early panin, or from taxa belonging to an extinct clade closely related to the Pan-Homo clade. Secondly, we consider how many species should be recognized within the hominin fossil record, and review the philosophies and methods used to identify taxa within the hominin fossil record. Thirdly, we examine how relationships within the hominin clade are investigated, including descriptions of the methods used to break down an integrated structure into tractable analytical units, and then how cladograms are generated and compared. We then review the internal structure of the hominin clade, including the problem of how many subclades should be recognized within the hominin clade, and we examine the reliability of hominin cladistic hypotheses. The last part of the paper reviews the concepts of a genus, including the criteria that should be used for recognizing genera within the hominin clade.

Key words:  cladistic analysis, evolution, hominin, human, systematics, taxonomy.

[lagarvelho]

Steve:

That was, in fact, a very good paper.  I read it about a week ago.  It laid out the various ways one could organize hominin taxonomy,depending on how many species you want to include.  Wood and Lonergan gave a very detailed description of the methods involved, which in itself was very enlightening. And mercifully, they didn't come down on one side or the other on this.  It' s well worth reading.
Anne G

[trehinp]

Thanks for the reference.

Unfortunately besides the abstract and some additional reference material, this is the message I got when looking for downloading it:

The full text article is available for purchase

$54.87 plus tax

I'm not member of a University or f any research organisation. So this is a prohibitive price for a single article...

In relation to Steve "Database post", we come to a subject that is a big problem: the circulation and accessibility of scientific data. Not an esay one I admit... But at least prices should be more reasonable for a single paper print., especially on a down load basis where the cost of printing/distribution is minimal.

Paul

[lagarvelho]

Paul:

Hmmmmm. . . . If you really want this, I have a copy in pdf on my hard drive, which I'd be happy to share.  I got it from somone who had access to the actual paper and was able to make a copy of it.  Let me know if you want it, and I'll send it to you offlist if you like.
Anne G

[trehinp]

Thanks Anne,

I would like a copy... Please...

It remains a problem that these providers don't understand that using prohibitive prices just kill their own customer base. Sorry for this off topic discussion...

(Jacques feel free to erase if you want...) But I needed to say it...

Paul

[lagarvelho]

Paul:

I've sent my e-mail address to you, so you can reply to me offlist.  When I get the reply, I'll send you the paper.
Anne G

[S. L. Wang]

Anne -

I've already sent a copy to Paul off-list few days ago (didn't see your post until today). Jacques also has a copy. Since he's the moderator, he may be able to upload it (slightly over 200kb) to the server.

- Steve

[trehinp]

Thanks Steve and Anne,

I will read that paper quietly and with a lot of attention.

I just looked rapidely thought it, it looks extremely interesting. I have an additional question does any of you know about classifications of species bellow apes and hominins? In fact of the branches on the animal world from very far back in time...

Thanks

Paul

[S. L. Wang]

Hmm... how far back would you like to know or go? =)

I know the (living) Order Primates well, and to a decent degree the primate fossil record. You can always do a Wikipedia search.

And here are some other useful links to start:

http://www.theprimata.com
http://1kai.dokkyomed.ac.jp/mammal/en/order/primates.html
http://tolweb.org/tree


- Steve

[trehinp]

Thanks a lot,

The third reference (http://tolweb.org/tree) provided the level of information I needed at this point in time. I Wanted to see how far down on the evolution tree it would be necessary to go to found a common ancestor to  modern Humans and modern birds...

This may sound like a strange endeavour, but here is the question I have in mind:

There are several aspects where some birds have closer resemblance to human being that do other primmates.

For example, birds who learn their songs have a closer variation of the Fox-P2 gene compared to that of human beings than other primates outside human being have. In some categorisation tasks, some birds show astonishing abstraction capabilities, some birds even have a better "theory of mind" than do great apes.

Would have it been possible that in the evolution process some primate would have kept the genes variations that was present in those birds while other primates would have lost it or have had mutations that curtailed a loss of the function? Hence explaining why some primates developped language and other cognitive skills while other primates didn't develop language and similar cognitive skills as humans...

Looking at the tree in the website I saw that one has to go very far down to find a common ancestor to birds and primates...

I have no special knowledge in genetics so this is purely a wild question...

Well, it doesn't cost much asking a question, does it?

Paul

[S. L. Wang]

this is an extremely difficult question to answer and to investigate (it's on-going), and it encompasses several different disciplines: linguistics, philosophy, psychology, biology, anthropology, paleontology.

funny thing you asked because i wrote a research paper in my early graduate days on ALR - ape language research. let me go back and find it, later today, and see what i wrote on the subject. i believe, at least for non-human primates, the answer is no for language. birds are a different bag of worms; they are Class Aves (vs. Class Mammalia). compared to the first primates, we are talking about a difference in hundreds of millions of years of evolutionary history.

in the meantime, two things should be considered:

1. what is the definition of language?
2. what about convergent evolution, or the more technical jargon, homoplasy?

- Steve

[trehinp]

this is an extremely difficult question to answer and to investigate (it's on-going), and it encompasses several different disciplines: linguistics, philosophy, psychology, biology, anthropology, paleontology.

funny thing you asked because i wrote a research paper in my early graduate days on ALR - ape language research. let me go back and find it, later today, and see what i wrote on the subject. i believe, at least for non-human primates, the answer is no for language. birds are a different bag of worms; they are Class Aves (vs. Class Mammalia). compared to the first primates, we are talking about a difference in hundreds of millions of years of evolutionary history.

in the meantime, two things should be considered:

1. what is the definition of language?
2. what about convergent evolution, or the more technical jargon, homoplasy?

- Steve

Thanks Steve,

I am looking forward to reading your research paper.

In the mean time I suggest that we move that discussion in the "Palaeolinguistic" board in order to hade a topic that corresponds to the subject discussion.

See yuo there.

Paul

[S. L. Wang]

I agree with you, Anne.

The paper gave a concise review of hominin taxonomy and concepts in evolutionary theory - it made reference to two excellent papers:

1. Wood and Collard 1999 (Evol Anthro 8)
2. Jolly 2001 (Yearbook of Phys Anthro 44)

The former gave a revised definition (based on cladistics) for the taxonomic category 'genus', and the latter compared hominins to baboons, titled "A Proper Study for Mankind."

I was also quite happy to see a step-by-step break down of a "what is" and "how to" for cladistics...

The part I would like to see more written is what to make of the "pre-modern" group within Homo, i.e. everything post-erectus but pre-sapiens...

- Steve

Steve:

That was, in fact, a very good paper.  I read it about a week ago.  It laid out the various ways one could organize hominin taxonomy,depending on how many species you want to include.  Wood and Lonergan gave a very detailed description of the methods involved, which in itself was very enlightening. And mercifully, they didn't come down on one side or the other on this.  It' s well worth reading.
Anne G

[lagarvelho]

Steve:

I guess what you "make" of the "pre-modern" members of Homo depends on whether you are more inclined toward a cladistic approach or a more traditional one.  I've seen credible-sounding cases made for designation of lots of species in Homo, and credible-sounding arguments made for very few species.  Hardly being an expert on these matters, I can't say which one is "right", if either of them are, by my instincts, such as they are, favor a more "conservative' approach than some cladistically inclined people desire, w/regard to the genus Homo.
Anne G