Dendrograms

[anthrostudies]

Does anyone have an opinion on these dendrograms? I think this will explain better than words.

[Jacques Cinq-Mars]

 

Does anyone have an opinion on these dendrograms? I think this will explain better than words.

To tell you the truth, I think that the visual versions of what you have written about earlier would make a lot more sense if you were to tell the readers about the purpose of the whole exercise,  about the actual data you are using (with, at the very least, a few pertinent references), and, finally, about some of the basic assumptions that always underly exercises of this type.

Jacques

PS  In passing, please note that the  'Maximum attachment size allowed' has been changed to 400 KB. This should allow you to make your dendograms more legible.

[anthrostudies]

Im sorry, but to me it seemed clear before. I can have trouble explaining things.

Im sorry the dendrograms weren't clear enough, I know the typing was a bit small, but I made them with Treeiew and I needed to fit the text to the size of the dendrogram. I will try to find a way to fix this, but first, here is my attempt to write an introduction, later I will go through which forms were found to be probable hybrids.

PURPOSE AND RESULTS

This started off as a matrix, to get used to using NONA with WinCLADA. So to start with, I tried to expand the matrix from the paper which described Homo ceranensis, to see where the origins of moderns and neanderthals fitted in the result. For example, to see if a lineage could be supported between Atapuerca and neanderthals, while moderns would be from African forms like Kabwe.

I also wanted to test multiregionalism, to see if including  certain specimens like Solo or Dali would attract certain lineages together. Because these are closely related lineages, its unsure that the biological species concept applies here. Indeed at least at the base of the lineages, there must have been genetic admixture.

As I expected, where I found a specimen to be attracting the lineages together, it was usually where someone else had suggested hybridisation (ie Solo or Skhul). Therefore I think this dendrogram supports reginal continuity, over convergence, although convergence is possible.

So the dendrograms, aren't a part of a "proper" study, theyre just interesting results I got; the first is the placement of moderns with OH9 and Dmanisi, and the second is the result when they were removed, to give a more traditional phylogeny. The second dendrogram is more likely, and it serves as a comparison.

SPECIMENS AND CHARACTERS

Most of the coding was done from drawings or photographs, of both the facial view and from the side. Most of them are from the internet, but are also from a book (Boule's "Les Hommes fossiles"). In addition, haracters and several specimens were added.

The original which I modified was "Homo cepranensis sp. nov. and the evolution of African-European Middle Pleistocene hominids" (Mallegni et al 2002) - www.academie-sciences.fr/publications/ comptes_rendus/pdf/CRPalevol_article4.pdf

CHARACTERS

1.   Long cranial vault 0=yes 1=no
2.   Low cranial vault 0=yes 1=no
3.   Maximum breadth across the angular torus or supramastoid crest 0=yes 1=0
4.   Thick vault bones (parietal) 0=not 1=yes
5.   Pronounced postorbital constriction 0=present 1=absent
6.   Frontal keel or ridge 0=present 1=absent
7.   Straight junction of torus and frontal squama 0=absent 1=present
8.   Coronal ridge 0=present 1=absent
9.   Flattened parietal 0=present 1=absent
10.   Rectangular parietal 0=absent 1=present
11.   Low temporal squama 0=absent 1=present
12.   Flat superior border of the temporal squama 0=not 1=yes
13.   Small mastoid process 0=yes 1=no
14.   Opisthocranion coincident with inion 0=yes 1=no
15.   Sharply angulated occipital profile 0=present 1=absent
16.   Broad nasal bones 0=no 1=yes
17.   Horizontal inferior border of the supraorbital torus 0=no 1=yes
18.   Continuous thickness of the supraorbital torus 0=present 1=absent
19.   Glabellar inflexion in superior view 0=present 1=absent
20.   Ceprano-like “torsion” of the supraorbital torus 0=absent 1=present
21.   Bilateral “discontinuity” ridges of the supratoral sulcus 0=absent 1=present
22.   Prominent angular torus of mastoid angle 0=absent 1=present
23.   Marked supramastoid crests 0=present 1=absent
24.   Marked mastoid crests 0=present 1=absent
25.   Occipitomastoid ridge 0=absent 1=present
26.   Justamastoid ridge absent 0=yes 1=no
27.   Suprameatal tegmen 0=present 1=absent
28.   Occipital torus with supratoral sulcus 0=no 1=yes
29.   Occipital torus continuous with angular torus and supramastoid crest 0=no 1=yes
30.   Mid-sagittal depression of the occipital torus 0=absent 1=present
31.   Projecting midface 0=present 1=absent
32.   Occipital bunning 0=no 1=present

SPECIMENS

ER-3883
OH 9
Bodo
Kabwe
Saldanha
DMN-2280
DMN-2282
SNG 2
SNG 17
Minatogawa 1
ZKD 10
ZKD 11
ZKD 12
Ceprano
Arago
Steinheim
Petralona
AT-SH-CR 4
AT-SH-CR 5
Daka
Saccopastore 1
La Chapelle
Shanidar 1
Predmost 3
Skhul 5
Cape Flats
Amud
Jebel Irhoud
Solo 6
Krapina C
Qafzeh 9
Cro-Magnon 1
Upper Cave 101
Combe Capelle
Dali
Sambungmacan 3
Liujiang
ER-3773
AbR-12
Elementeita C
BOU-VP-16/1
Homa Shell Mound 4
Asselar
Chancelade
Grotte Des Enfants
Erq-el-Ahmar

[thuur khan]

Hi !

I applaud Anthrostudies. Your cladogrammes are very interesting.

About the relationship Dali/Irhoud, Philip Rightmire (Binghamton, NYC) placed Dali near Florisbad and Saldanha (the archaic Homo sapiens of Bräuer) in the tree he proposed. And Florent Détroit (MNHN, CNRS, Paris) added Irhoud 1 & 2 to the early African AMHs (the most recent group of the archaic Homo sapiens).

About the place of Dali & Irhoud in your cladogramms, I notice that they have the same common ancestor than the Neanderthals (in your 39-specimens-cladogramme) or than the Neanderthals and the AMHs (in your 35-specimens-cladogramme). For information, I propose you to look at the proposition of Valéry Zeitoun (http://www.ivry.cnrs.fr/deh/zeitoun/cladistique.htm ) in which Dali, AMHs and Neanderthals also have the same common ancestor, but Dali is not in the same lineage than the group AMHs-Ns.

The place of the AMHs in your 39-specimens-cladogramm is surprising ! Which characters gave AMHs this place near OH9 & Homo georgicus and so far from all the other fossils ?

About the question of the existence of the species ergaster, Rightmire (1998) and more recently Tim White refused to split African and Asian erectus into two separated species. But your cladogrammes propose that Zhoukoudian & Sangiran are clearly different from the other fossils.

They also show the proximity of the European & the Asian heidelbergensis (Petralona, Arago...& the archaic H sapiens as Bodo) : the place of Sambungmacan is surprising, but perhaps not this of Daka (sorry Mr Tim White).

Idaltu : why is BOU VP 16/1 so far from the AMHs in your 39-sp-cldgr ?

Many questions !

tk

[thuur khan]

They also show the proximity of the European & the Asian heidelbergensis (Petralona, Arago...& the archaic H sapiens as Bodo) : the place of Sambungmacan is surprising, but perhaps not this of Daka (sorry Mr Tim White).

I wanted to say :

"They (the cladogrammes) also show the proximity of the European & the *African* Homo heidelbergensis".
Sorry.

[anthrostudies]

I applaud Anthrostudies. Your cladogrammes are very interesting.

Thank you, I hope I get more replies here!

About the relationship Dali/Irhoud, Philip Rightmire (Binghamton, NYC) placed Dali near Florisbad and Saldanha (the archaic Homo sapiens of Bräuer) in the tree he proposed. And Florent Détroit (MNHN, CNRS, Paris) added Irhoud 1 & 2 to the early African AMHs (the most recent group of the archaic Homo sapiens).

Here Florisbad isn't included, but Saldanha is, and is found from the original Ceprano matrix to be unrelated.

About the place of Dali & Irhoud in your cladogramms, I notice that they have the same common ancestor than the Neanderthals (in your 39-specimens-cladogramme) or than the Neanderthals and the AMHs (in your 35-specimens-cladogramme). For information, I propose you to look at the proposition of Valéry Zeitoun (http://www.ivry.cnrs.fr/deh/zeitoun/cladistique.htm ) in which Dali, AMHs and Neanderthals also have the same common ancestor, but Dali is not in the same lineage than the group AMHs-Ns.

I can't read French but the 2nd dendrogram is interesting. I think the possible hybrid status og Ngandong, and Sambungmacan, mignt have had an effect on the placement of the Chinese erectus. In this one, Zeitoun seems to be placing Dali among heidelbergensis, so its a shame so much emphasis was on "erectus" and soloensis. If more post-erectus archaics were included then maybe Ngandong and Sambungmacan would be moved out of erectus.

The place of the AMHs in your 39-specimens-cladogramm is surprising ! Which characters gave AMHs this place near OH9 & Homo georgicus and so far from all the other fossils ?

Indeed it is surprising, isn't it?

Characters linking DMN2280 to moderns -
7
15
19

Characters linking DMN2282 and DMN2280 to moderns -
10
12
18
20

Characters linking OH9, DMN2282 and DMN2290 to moderns -
22
24

About the question of the existence of the species ergaster, Rightmire (1998) and more recently Tim White refused to split African and Asian erectus into two separated species. But your cladogrammes propose that Zhoukoudian & Sangiran are clearly different from the other fossils.

Yes, they form a monophyletic erectus, but do note that ER-3773 is seperate here to ER-3883. According to this dendrogram, Homo ergaster has itself been overused, like erectus.

They also show the proximity of the European & the Asian heidelbergensis (Petralona, Arago...& the archaic H sapiens as Bodo) : the place of Sambungmacan is surprising, but perhaps not this of Daka (sorry Mr Tim White).

But since heidelbergensis is described from a jaw, this lineage should perhaps be called steinheimensis. True heidelbergensis may not be a part of this lineage.

Idaltu : why is BOU VP 16/1 so far from the AMHs in your 39-sp-cldgr ?

In the 39-specimen dendrogram the reason is that moderns are attracted to OH-9 and Dmanisi, but the specimens which are usually placed closer to moderns, are not. Its interesting that idaltu is always neanderthaloid, but this doesn't change when I remove others from the matrix. Its a stable position for idaltu.

[trehinp]

Just for those of you who like me aren't experts on Dendograms, I've found a "dendogram for the dummies" type of website :-)

http://149.170.199.144/multivar/ca.htm#menu

In fact it is a bit broader and addresses Cluster Analysis in general and understandable way:

A. Measuring the similarity between objects
B. Joining groups together
C. The dendrogram
D. Examples
E. Self assessment exercises
F. Data files

I helped me understand the discussion on dendograms...

By the way should methodology topics be discussed in "Background & Complementary Information." of would it be possible to create a board on archaeology methodologies ?

Paul

[Jacques Cinq-Mars]

Just for those of you who like me aren't experts on Dendograms, I've found a "dendogram for the dummies" type of website :-)

http://149.170.199.144/multivar/ca.htm#menu

In fact it is a bit broader and addresses Cluster Analysis in general and understandable way:

A. Measuring the similarity between objects
B. Joining groups together
C. The dendrogram
D. Examples
E. Self assessment exercises
F. Data files

I helped me understand the discussion on dendograms...

By the way should methodology topics be discussed in "Background & Complementary Information." of would it be possible to create a board on archaeology methodologies ?

Paul

Paul,

First, the "Background & Complementary Information” Board has been put aside to allow storage and retrieval of very large files that would unnecessarily clutter the actual Forum server space. Such files can consist of high resolution graphics of various types, high resolution pictures, and sizeable documents such as databases, papers, etc. It is also a given that this particular space if for material that can only be filed in accord with the © COPYRIGHT rules PALANTH has chosen to follow. You will note that, until now, this particular module has not been overused, but this situation could change and, for the time being, I would rather keep it as is.

Second, it may well be that the creation of a “Methods and Theories” Board (as it were) could be of some use, and thanks for coming up with the suggestion. I’ll have to think about this and, in order to arrive at some practical decision (for the good of the Forum), suggestions and opinions would certainly be appreciated.

Jacques