While I was on the plane to the States this week, I read a fascinating
classification article that argued that chimpanzees should be reclassified
as members of the human genus. In other words there should be Homo sapiens,
Homo troglidytes, and Homo bonobus. The authors present the following
classification:
Classification of homo, man, chimps and gorillas
Family Hominidae
Subfamily Homininae
Tribe Hominini
Subtribe Hominina
Gorilla: gorillas
Homo
H. (pan): chimpanzees, bonobos
H (Homo): humans
Morris Goodman et al, “Toward a Phylogenetic Classification of Primates
Based on DNA Evidence Complemented by Fossil Evidence,” Molecular
Phylogenetics and Evolution 9(1998):3:585-598, p. 594
They then conclude:
“Thus, by the principle of rank equivalence with other primate clades of the
same age, Pan and Homo should be treated as subgenera of Homo, i.e., H.
(Pan) and H. (Homo), Hylobates (Hylobates) lar and Hylobates (Symphalangus
syndactylus provide exception to to these reductions of ranks of taxa within
Hominidae.” Morris Goodman et al, “Toward a Phylogenetic Classification of
Primates Based on DNA Evidence Complemented by Fossil Evidence,” Molecular
Phylogenetics and Evolution 9(1998):3:585-598, p. 596
If this were to be adopted (which it won't because no one wants to have a
chimp for a close relative) it would certainly move Australopithecus to the
status of Homo also--which is what Ernst Mayr argued for in 1951. Shipman
writes:
"Though Mayr had not examined any of the fossils himself, he ventured to
suggest a sweeping revision: everything from the earliest ape-man to the
latest modern man ought to be included in the genus Homo--possibly even
within Homo sapiens. He conceded that there might need to be three species
within the genus--transvalensis for the australopithecine ape-men, erectus
for Homo erectus, and sapiens for living humans and Neandertals.
"The political and biological message was clearly focused on the unity of
mankind throughout evolutionary history. If such diverse creatures as
australopithecines, erectuses, and modern humans could be incorporated into
one genus or species--despite brain sizes that ranged from about 400 to more
than 1200 cc and equally marked disparities in body size and
proportions--then the differences among the modern races of mankind, which
were practically indistinguishable skeletally, were trivial."" ~ Pat
Shipman, The Evolution of Racism, (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1994), p.
185
Others have so argued in more recent times:
The other is a much more progressive line, which at all times after it was
recognizably different from the former was adapting to its environment in a
manner that involved culture as a very prominent part of the adaptation.
This line includes what currently is regarded as Australopithecus (sensu
strico) and Homo. Since it is a line occupying one adaptive zone, I
consider it reasonable to use a single generic name for it, and this would
have to be Homo, according to the Code. Also, being a single lineage, its
taxonomy is largely a matter of taste since no completely separate taxa,
differentiable by means of properly diagnostic charactes, can be found in
it. However, since two more or less separate groups can be defined within
the lineage, two species could be made without serious difficulty. The
first would include the more primitive stage, in which the full characters
of the genus were being achieved, in which the brain is relatively small,
the primitive type of internal mandibular contour is still present and the
cultural level achieved is not especially advanced. This would properly be
named H. transvaalensis. Some authors have recently suggested something
similar to this but refer to the species thus defined as H. africanus by
simply substituting Homo for Australopithecus. However, this is not proper
since the trivial name africanus is preoccupied as far as the genus Homo is
concerned (having been used by Broom for Boskop Man), hence it may not be
used here, and the next senior trivial name, transvaalensis, must be used
instead, as Mayr realized a long time ago.
"The second species, representing the stage in which most of the obvious
physical change had already occurred and evolution consisted chiefly of
realization of the cultural potential, hence the most obvious change being
cultural, would be H. sapiens, this name having taxonomic precedence over H.
erectus. It is obvious, however, that the characters of the one species
grade into the other, hence with sufficient material known, some specimens
would be difficult to classify. Some workers might prefer to make more
species and others may prefer to have only a single species; this is a
matter of taste and I have here suggested what appears to me to be most
meaningful.
"I suggest, therefore, that the time has come to sink the genus
Australopithecus Dart, 1925 into the synonymy of the genus Homo Linnaeus,
1758. On this interpretation the family Hominidae includes the genera
Paranthropus Broom 1938, and Homo. If the above interpretation is correct,
then there can hardly be justification for having two subfamilies. There can
also be very little justification either for using the term
'australopithecine.'" ~ John T. Robinson, "Variation and the Taxonomy of the
Early Hominids," Evolutionary Biology 1(1967):69?100, p. 97-98
glenn
see http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/dmd.htm
for lots of creation/evolution information
anthropology/geology/paleontology/theology\
personal stories of struggle
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jan 19 2001 - 16:50:02 EST