My 1994 & 1996 Hum.Evol.papers show that
-E.Afr.apiths are closer anatomically & therefore also evolutionarily to gorillas,
-S.Afr.apiths idem to chimps.

The evidence is clear IMO, I have no doubt about this, but nobody seems to follow my view... :-(

Apparently, E & S.Afr.apiths evolved in //
-from Pliocene gracile (afarensis // africanus)
-to (early?)Pleistocene robust (boisei // robustus).

Nomenclature proposal:
-Gorilla fossil subgenus Praeanthropus afarensis, aethiopicus, boisei,
-Pan fossil subgenus Australopithecus africanus, naledi, robustus.

Google
-"not Homo but Pan or Australopithecus naledi PPT"
-'ape human evolution made easy PPT verhaegen"

On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 15:57:21 -0700 (PDT), "littor...@gmail.com"
<littoral.homo@gmail.com> wrote:

>My 1994 & 1996 Hum.Evol.papers show that
>-E.Afr.apiths are closer anatomically & therefore also evolutionarily to gorillas,
>-S.Afr.apiths idem to chimps.

Modern phylogenetic and morphometric analyses refute that hypothesis.

See for example:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-51685-w

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1513-8

>The evidence is clear IMO, I have no doubt about this, but nobody seems to follow my view... :-(

Nobody should follow a lunatic into the desert.

Op dinsdag 6 juli 2021 om 18:46:59 UTC+2 schreef Pandora:

> >My 1994 & 1996 Hum.Evol.papers show that
> >-E.Afr.apiths are closer anatomically & therefore also evolutionarily to gorillas,
> >-S.Afr.apiths idem to chimps.

> Modern phylogenetic and morphometric analyses refute that hypothesis.

No they don't: see for example
> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-51685-w
> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1513-8

We don't descend from apiths, but chimps & gorillas do:
the evidence is overwhelming:

- Ferguson 1989
“The evolution of the australopithecine crania was the antithesis of the Homo line.
Instead of becoming less ape-like, as in Homo, they become more ‘ape-like’.
Cranial proportions and ectocranial features that were thought to be unique among pongids evolved ... in the australopithecines.
The features of KNM-WT 17000, therefore, are not as ‘primitive’ as they look.
The robust Australopithecus did not evolve from a big-toothed pongid ancestor with large cranial superstructures, but from a small-toothed hominid with a rounder, smoother ectocranium, like A.africanus”.
- Bromage & Dean 1985
“Plio-Pleistocene hominids had markedly abbreviated [enamel] growth periods relative to modern man, similar to those of the modem great apes”.

- Beynon cs 1991
“Enamel thickness has been secondarily reduced in the African apes and also, although at a different rare and extent, in the orang-utan.
Thick enamel, previously the most important characteristic in arguments about the earliest hominid, does not therefore identify a hominid”

- Falk 1987
In the S.African fossils incl.Taung, “sulcal patterns of 7 australopithecine encocasts appear to be ape-like rather than human-like”.

- Falk 1985
“Cranial capacity, the relationship between endocast & skull, sulcal pattern, brain shape & cranial venous sinuses, all of these features appear to be consistent with an ape-like external cortical morphology in Hadar early hominids”.

- Ferguson 1987
In the type specimen of A.afarensis, “the lower 3rd premolar of ‘A.africanus afarensis’ LH-4 is completely apelike”

- Schoenemann 1989
“A.afarensis is much more similar cranially to the modern African apes than to modern humans”

- Kimbel cs 1984
“Olson's assertion that the lateral inflation of the A.L.333-45 mastoids is greater than in any extant ape is incorrect if the fossil is compared to P.troglodytes males or some Gorilla males & females...
the pattern of pneumatization in A.afarensis is also found only in the extant apes among other hominoids”.
“Prior to the identification of A.afarensis the asterionic notch was thought to characterize only the apes among hominoids.
Kimbel & Rak relate this asterionic sutural figuration to the pattern of cranial cresting and temporal bone pneumatization shared by A.afarensis & the extant apes”

-Zuckerman 1954
“... the fact that 2 presumed Paranthropus [robustus] skulls were furnished with high sagittal crests implied that they had also possessed powerful occipital crests & ape-like planum nuchale...
Nuchal crests which are no more prominent - and indeed some less prominent - will be found in many adult apes”

- Laitman & Heimbuch 1982
In Sts.5, MLD-37/38, SK-47, SK-48, SK-83, Taung, KNM-ER 406, O.H.24 & O.H.5, “craniometric analysis showed that they had marked similarities to those of extant pongids.
These basicranial similarities between Plio-Pleistocene hominids & extant apes suggest that the upper respiratory systems of these groups were also alike in appearance...
Markedly flexed basicrania [are] found only in modern humans after the 2nd year...”

- Franciscus & Trinkaus 1988
“The total morphological pattern with regard to the nasal region of Australopithecus can be characterized by a flat, non-protruding nasal skeleton which does not differ qualitatively from the extant nonhuman hominoid pattern, one which is in marked contrast to the protruding nasal skeleton of modern H.sapiens”

- Ryan & Johanson 1989
“Incisal dental microwear in A.afarensis is most similar to that observed in Gorilla”.

- Johanson & Edey 1981
The composite skull reconstructed mostly from A.L.333 specimens “looked very much like a small female gorilla”

- Walker cs1986
“Other primitive features found in KNM-WT 17000, but not know or much discussed for A.afarensis, are: very small cranial capacity; low posterior profile of the calvaria;
nasals extended far above the fronto-maxillar suture and well onto an uninflated glabella; and extremely convex inferolateral margins of the orbits such as found in some gorillas”.

- Kennedy, 1991
As for the maximum parietal breadth and the biauriculare in O.H.5 and KNM-ER 406 “the robust australopithecines have values near the Gorilla mean:
both the pongids & the robust australopithecines have highly pneumatized bases”

- Robinson 1960
In O.H.5, “the curious & characteristic features of the Paranthropus skull... parallel some of those of the gorilla”

- Leakey & Walker, 1988.
The A. boisei “lineage has been characterized by sexual dimorphism of the degree seen in modern Gorilla for the length of its known history”

- Beynon & Wood 1986
A.boisei teeth showed “a relative absence of prism decussation”;
among extant hominoids, “Gorilla enamel showed relatively little decussation ...”

- Leakey 1981
"Alan [Walker] has analysed a number of Au.robustus teeth, and they fall into the fruit-eating category. More precisely, their teeth patterns look like those of chimpanzees...
Then, when be looked at some Homo erectus teeth, be found that the pattern changed”

- Eckhardt1987
“The ‘keystone’ nasal bone arrangement suggested as a derived diagnostic of Paranthropus [robustus] is found in an appreciable number of pongids, particularly clearly in some chimpanzees”

- Zihlman cs 1978
“P. paniscus provides a suitable comparison for Australopithecus [Sts.5]; they are similar in body size, postcranial dimensions and... even in cranial & facial features”

- Ferguson 1989
“A. africanus Sts.5, which... falls well within the range of Pan troglodytes, is markedly prognathous or hyperprognathous”".

- Woodward 1925
In Taung, “I see nothing in the orbits, nasal bones & canine teeth definitely nearer to the human condition than the corresponding parts of the skull of a modern young chimpanzee”

- Rak & Howell 1978.
"The Taung juvenile seems to resemble a young chimpanzee more closely than it resembles L338y-6”

- Bromage 1985
“In addition to similarities in facial remodeling it appears that Taung & Australopithecus in general, had maturation periods similar to those of the extant chimpanzee”
- Falk 1987
“I estimate an adult capacity for Taung ranging from 404-420 cm2, with a mean of 412 cm2.
Application of Passingham’s curve for brain development in Pan is preferable to that for humans because
(a) brain size of early hominids approximates that of chimpanzees,
(b) the curves for brain volume relative to body weight are essentially parallel in pongids & australopithecines, leading Hofman to conclude:
‘as with pongids, the australopithecines probably differed only in size, not in design’”

- Bromage & Dean 1985
In Taung, “pneumatization has also extended into the zygoma & hard palate. T
his is intriguing because an intrapalatal extension of the maxillary sinus has only been reported in chimpanzees & robust australopithecines among higher primates”

- Schultz 1941.
“That the fossil ape Australopithecus [Taung] ‘is distinguished from all living apes by the... unfused nasal bones…’ as claimed by Dart (1940), cannot be maintained in view of the very considerable number of cases of separate nasal bones among orang-utans & chimpanzees of ages corresponding to that of Australopithecus”

_____

We don't descend from chimps, but both humans & chimps descend from early hominids.
Only complete idiots deny that apiths were intermediate between early hominids & Afr.apes.

Probably the same idiots who believe their Pleistocene ancestors ran after antelopes...
:-DDD

littor...@gmail.com wrote:
> Op dinsdag 6 juli 2021 om 18:46:59 UTC+2 schreef Pandora:
>
>
>>> My 1994 & 1996 Hum.Evol.papers show that
>>> -E.Afr.apiths are closer anatomically & therefore also evolutionarily to gorillas,
>>> -S.Afr.apiths idem to chimps.
>
>> Modern phylogenetic and morphometric analyses refute that hypothesis.
>
> No they don't: see for example
>> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-51685-w
>> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1513-8
>
>
> We don't descend from apiths, but chimps & gorillas do:
> the evidence is overwhelming:

You didn't follow his links, did you?

littor...@gmail.com wrote:
> Op dinsdag 6 juli 2021 om 18:46:59 UTC+2 schreef Pandora:
>
>
>> <littor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> My 1994 & 1996 Hum.Evol.papers show that
>>> -E.Afr.apiths are closer anatomically & therefore also evolutionarily to gorillas,
>>> -S.Afr.apiths idem to chimps.
>
>> Modern phylogenetic and morphometric analyses refute that hypothesis.
>
> The most recent phylogenetic & morphometric analyses accept these hypotheses.
>

Such as ->

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-51685-w
The Evolutionary Radiation of Hominids: a Phylogenetic Comparative Study
Guido Rocatti & S. Ivan Perez
Scientific Reports volume 9, Article number: 15267 (2019)

Abstract
Over the last 150 years the diversity and phylogenetic relationships of
the hominoids have been one of the main focuses in biological and
anthropological research. Despite this, the study of factors involved in
their evolutionary radiation and the origin of the hominin clade, a key
subject for the further understanding of human evolution, remained mostly
unexplored. Here we quantitatively approach these events using
phylogenetic comparative methods and craniofacial morphometric data from
extant and fossil hominoid species. Specifically, we explore alternative
evolutionary models that allow us to gain new insights into this clade
diversification process. Our results show a complex and variable scenario
involving different evolutionary regimes through the hominid evolutionary
radiation –modeled by Ornstein-Uhlenbeck multi-selective regime and
Brownian motion multi-rate scenarios–. These different evolutionary
regimes might relate to distinct ecological and cultural factors
previously suggested to explain hominid evolution at different
evolutionary scales along the last 10 million years.

On Thu, 22 Jul 2021 23:04:02 -0600, Primum Sapienti
<invalide@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>littor...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Op dinsdag 6 juli 2021 om 18:46:59 UTC+2 schreef Pandora:
>>
>>
>>> <littor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> My 1994 & 1996 Hum.Evol.papers show that
>>>> -E.Afr.apiths are closer anatomically & therefore also evolutionarily to gorillas,
>>>> -S.Afr.apiths idem to chimps.
>>
>>> Modern phylogenetic and morphometric analyses refute that hypothesis.
>>
>> The most recent phylogenetic & morphometric analyses accept these hypotheses.
>>
>
>Such as ->
>
>
>https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-51685-w
>The Evolutionary Radiation of Hominids: a Phylogenetic Comparative Study
>Guido Rocatti & S. Ivan Perez
>Scientific Reports volume 9, Article number: 15267 (2019)

In particular see fig.3:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-51685-w/figures/3

Australopithecus and Paranthropus both in a clade with Homo (including
H. naledi), exclusive of Pan and Gorilla.

Anthropocentrical PAs still believe e descend from some sort of chimps.
That is ridiculous, of course:
both humans chimps had *more apith-like* ancestors.
Humans don't descend from apiths themselves, but chimps & gorillas do:
the evidence is overwhelming:

- Ferguson 1989
“The evolution of the australopithecine crania was the antithesis of the Homo line.
Instead of becoming less ape-like, as in Homo, they become more ‘ape-like’.
Cranial proportions and ectocranial features that were thought to be unique among pongids evolved ... in the australopithecines.
The features of KNM-WT 17000, therefore, are not as ‘primitive’ as they look.
The robust Australopithecus did not evolve from a big-toothed pongid ancestor with large cranial superstructures, but from a small-toothed hominid with a rounder, smoother ectocranium, like A.africanus”.

- Bromage & Dean 1985
“Plio-Pleistocene hominids had markedly abbreviated [enamel] growth periods relative to modern man, similar to those of the modem great apes”.

- Beynon cs 1991
“Enamel thickness has been secondarily reduced in the African apes and also, although at a different rare and extent, in the orang-utan.
Thick enamel, previously the most important characteristic in arguments about the earliest hominid, does not therefore identify a hominid”

- Falk 1987
In the S.African fossils incl.Taung, “sulcal patterns of 7 australopithecine encocasts appear to be ape-like rather than human-like”.

- Falk 1985
“Cranial capacity, the relationship between endocast & skull, sulcal pattern, brain shape & cranial venous sinuses, all of these features appear to be consistent with an ape-like external cortical morphology in Hadar early hominids”.

- Ferguson 1987
In the type specimen of A.afarensis, “the lower 3rd premolar of ‘A.africanus afarensis’ LH-4 is completely apelike”

- Schoenemann 1989
“A.afarensis is much more similar cranially to the modern African apes than to modern humans”

- Kimbel cs 1984
“Olson's assertion that the lateral inflation of the A.L.333-45 mastoids is greater than in any extant ape is incorrect if the fossil is compared to P.troglodytes males or some Gorilla males & females...
the pattern of pneumatization in A.afarensis is also found only in the extant apes among other hominoids”.
“Prior to the identification of A.afarensis the asterionic notch was thought to characterize only the apes among hominoids.
Kimbel & Rak relate this asterionic sutural figuration to the pattern of cranial cresting and temporal bone pneumatization shared by A.afarensis & the extant apes”

-Zuckerman 1954
“... the fact that 2 presumed Paranthropus [robustus] skulls were furnished with high sagittal crests implied that they had also possessed powerful occipital crests & ape-like planum nuchale...
Nuchal crests which are no more prominent - and indeed some less prominent - will be found in many adult apes”

- Laitman & Heimbuch 1982
In Sts.5, MLD-37/38, SK-47, SK-48, SK-83, Taung, KNM-ER 406, O.H.24 & O.H.5, “craniometric analysis showed that they had marked similarities to those of extant pongids.
These basicranial similarities between Plio-Pleistocene hominids & extant apes suggest that the upper respiratory systems of these groups were also alike in appearance...
Markedly flexed basicrania [are] found only in modern humans after the 2nd year...”

- Franciscus & Trinkaus 1988
“The total morphological pattern with regard to the nasal region of Australopithecus can be characterized by a flat, non-protruding nasal skeleton which does not differ qualitatively from the extant nonhuman hominoid pattern, one which is in marked contrast to the protruding nasal skeleton of modern H.sapiens”

- Ryan & Johanson 1989
“Incisal dental microwear in A.afarensis is most similar to that observed in Gorilla”.

- Johanson & Edey 1981
The composite skull reconstructed mostly from A.L.333 specimens “looked very much like a small female gorilla”

- Walker cs1986
“Other primitive features found in KNM-WT 17000, but not know or much discussed for A.afarensis, are: very small cranial capacity; low posterior profile of the calvaria;
nasals extended far above the fronto-maxillar suture and well onto an uninflated glabella; and extremely convex inferolateral margins of the orbits such as found in some gorillas”.

- Kennedy, 1991
As for the maximum parietal breadth and the biauriculare in O.H.5 and KNM-ER 406 “the robust australopithecines have values near the Gorilla mean:
both the pongids & the robust australopithecines have highly pneumatized bases”

- Robinson 1960
In O.H.5, “the curious & characteristic features of the Paranthropus skull... parallel some of those of the gorilla”

- Leakey & Walker, 1988.
The A. boisei “lineage has been characterized by sexual dimorphism of the degree seen in modern Gorilla for the length of its known history”

- Beynon & Wood 1986
A.boisei teeth showed “a relative absence of prism decussation”;
among extant hominoids, “Gorilla enamel showed relatively little decussation ...”

- Leakey 1981
"Alan [Walker] has analysed a number of Au.robustus teeth, and they fall into the fruit-eating category. More precisely, their teeth patterns look like those of chimpanzees...
Then, when be looked at some Homo erectus teeth, be found that the pattern changed”

- Eckhardt1987
“The ‘keystone’ nasal bone arrangement suggested as a derived diagnostic of Paranthropus [robustus] is found in an appreciable number of pongids, particularly clearly in some chimpanzees”

- Zihlman cs 1978
“P. paniscus provides a suitable comparison for Australopithecus [Sts.5]; they are similar in body size, postcranial dimensions and... even in cranial & facial features”

- Ferguson 1989
“A. africanus Sts.5, which... falls well within the range of Pan troglodytes, is markedly prognathous or hyperprognathous”".

- Woodward 1925
In Taung, “I see nothing in the orbits, nasal bones & canine teeth definitely nearer to the human condition than the corresponding parts of the skull of a modern young chimpanzee”

- Rak & Howell 1978.
"The Taung juvenile seems to resemble a young chimpanzee more closely than it resembles L338y-6”

- Bromage 1985
“In addition to similarities in facial remodeling it appears that Taung & Australopithecus in general, had maturation periods similar to those of the extant chimpanzee”

- Falk 1987
“I estimate an adult capacity for Taung ranging from 404-420 cm2, with a mean of 412 cm2.
Application of Passingham’s curve for brain development in Pan is preferable to that for humans because
(a) brain size of early hominids approximates that of chimpanzees,
(b) the curves for brain volume relative to body weight are essentially parallel in pongids & australopithecines, leading Hofman to conclude:
‘as with pongids, the australopithecines probably differed only in size, not in design’”

- Bromage & Dean 1985
In Taung, “pneumatization has also extended into the zygoma & hard palate. T
his is intriguing because an intrapalatal extension of the maxillary sinus has only been reported in chimpanzees & robust australopithecines among higher primates”

- Schultz 1941.
“That the fossil ape Australopithecus [Taung] ‘is distinguished from all living apes by the... unfused nasal bones…’ as claimed by Dart (1940), cannot be maintained in view of the very considerable number of cases of separate nasal bones among orang-utans & chimpanzees of ages corresponding to that of Australopithecus”

On Sat, 24 Jul 2021 05:30:56 -0700 (PDT), "littor...@gmail.com"
<littoral.homo@gmail.com> wrote:

>Anthropocentrical PAs still believe e descend from some sort of chimps.
>That is ridiculous, of course:
>both humans chimps had *more apith-like* ancestors.
>Humans don't descend from apiths themselves, but chimps & gorillas do:
>the evidence is overwhelming:
>
>- Ferguson 1989
>- Bromage & Dean 1985
>- Beynon cs 1991
>- Falk 1987
>- Falk 1985
>- Ferguson 1987
>- Schoenemann 1989
>- Kimbel cs 1984
>- Zuckerman 1954
>- Laitman & Heimbuch 1982
>- Franciscus & Trinkaus 1988
>- Ryan & Johanson 1989
>- Johanson & Edey 1981
>- Walker cs1986
>- Kennedy, 1991
>- Robinson 1960
>- Leakey & Walker, 1988.
>- Beynon & Wood 1986
>- Leakey 1981
>- Eckhardt1987
>- Zihlman cs 1978
>- Ferguson 1989
>- Woodward 1925
>- Rak & Howell 1978.
>- Bromage 1985
>- Falk 1987
>- Bromage & Dean 1985
>- Schultz 1941.

Notice how almost all these refs are pre-1990, disregarding 30 years
of additional discoveries and analyses. With such outdated material
your case is weak. None of them represents a systematic evaluation of
all available characters of all available taxa to date in a
phylogenetic context.

When you do that you get this:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1513-8/figures/13

A persistent clade of Australopithecus, Paranthropus and Homo
exclusive of Pan and Gorilla.

Op zaterdag 24 juli 2021 om 16:45:10 UTC+2 schreef Pandora:

> >Anthropocentrical PAs still believe e descend from some sort of chimps.
> >That is ridiculous, of course:
> >both humans chimps had *more apith-like* ancestors.
> >Humans don't descend from apiths themselves, but chimps & gorillas do:
> >the evidence is overwhelming:
> >- Ferguson 1989
> >- Bromage & Dean 1985
> >- Beynon cs 1991
> >- Falk 1987
> >- Falk 1985
> >- Ferguson 1987
> >- Schoenemann 1989
> >- Kimbel cs 1984
> >- Zuckerman 1954
> >- Laitman & Heimbuch 1982
> >- Franciscus & Trinkaus 1988
> >- Ryan & Johanson 1989
> >- Johanson & Edey 1981
> >- Walker cs1986
> >- Kennedy, 1991
> >- Robinson 1960
> >- Leakey & Walker, 1988.
> >- Beynon & Wood 1986
> >- Leakey 1981
> >- Eckhardt1987
> >- Zihlman cs 1978
> >- Ferguson 1989
> >- Woodward 1925
> >- Rak & Howell 1978.
> >- Bromage 1985
> >- Falk 1987
> >- Bromage & Dean 1985
> >- Schultz 1941.

> Notice how almost all these refs are pre-1990, disregarding 30 years

:-DDD
Sigh.
If you a *little* bit informed, you had known they come from my 1994 paper
"Australopithecines: ancestors of the African apes?"
Hum Evol 9:121-139
They're confirmed by ALL papers after that time.

The anthropocentric paper you mentioned confirms that anthropocentrical PAs still ridiculously believe that we descend from some sort of chimps.

Waste your own time.
Inform at least a little bit,
google "aquarboreal".

On Sat, 24 Jul 2021 08:30:24 -0700 (PDT), "littor...@gmail.com"
<littoral.homo@gmail.com> wrote:

>Op zaterdag 24 juli 2021 om 16:45:10 UTC+2 schreef Pandora:
>
>
>> >Anthropocentrical PAs still believe e descend from some sort of chimps.
>> >That is ridiculous, of course:
>> >both humans chimps had *more apith-like* ancestors.
>> >Humans don't descend from apiths themselves, but chimps & gorillas do:
>> >the evidence is overwhelming:
>> >- Ferguson 1989
>> >- Bromage & Dean 1985
>> >- Beynon cs 1991
>> >- Falk 1987
>> >- Falk 1985
>> >- Ferguson 1987
>> >- Schoenemann 1989
>> >- Kimbel cs 1984
>> >- Zuckerman 1954
>> >- Laitman & Heimbuch 1982
>> >- Franciscus & Trinkaus 1988
>> >- Ryan & Johanson 1989
>> >- Johanson & Edey 1981
>> >- Walker cs1986
>> >- Kennedy, 1991
>> >- Robinson 1960
>> >- Leakey & Walker, 1988.
>> >- Beynon & Wood 1986
>> >- Leakey 1981
>> >- Eckhardt1987
>> >- Zihlman cs 1978
>> >- Ferguson 1989
>> >- Woodward 1925
>> >- Rak & Howell 1978.
>> >- Bromage 1985
>> >- Falk 1987
>> >- Bromage & Dean 1985
>> >- Schultz 1941.
>
>> Notice how almost all these refs are pre-1990, disregarding 30 years
>
>:-DDD
>Sigh.
>If you a *little* bit informed, you had known they come from my 1994 paper
>"Australopithecines: ancestors of the African apes?"
>Hum Evol 9:121-139

That paper is also 27 years outdated.

>They're confirmed by ALL papers after that time.

Except the ones mentioned earlier, and others such as:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2004.08.008

https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2015.0943

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.03.006

>The anthropocentric paper you mentioned confirms that anthropocentrical PAs still ridiculously believe that we descend from some sort of chimps.

No, it confirms the hypothesis that Australopithecus, Paranthropus and
Homo as a clade are sister to Pan, forming a clade that is sister to
Gorilla.

....

> >> Notice how almost all these refs are pre-1990, disregarding 30 years

> >:-DDD
> >Sigh.
> >If you a *little* bit informed, you had known they come from my 1994 paper
> >"Australopithecines: ancestors of the African apes?"
> >Hum Evol 9:121-139

> That paper is also 27 years outdated.

Yes, my boy, that's what I'm repeating:
you're the most stupid of the traditional anthropocentric PAs.
And that's not easy:
the ridiculous papers you mentioned but I snipped *assume* that apiths are closer relatives of us than of Afr.apes, whereas I *proved* that that's wrong:

MORPHOLOGICAL DISTANCE BETWEEN AUSTRALOPITHECINE, HUMAN AND APE SKULLS
Human Evolution 11: 35-41, 1996
This paper attempts to quantify the morphological difference between fossil and living species of hominoids. The comparison is based upon a balanced list of craniodental characters corrected for size (Wood & Chamberlain, 1986). The conclusions are: craniodentally the australopithecine species are a unique and rather uniform group, much nearer to the great apes than to humans; overall, their skull and dentition do not resemble the human more than the chimpanzee’s do.

AUSTRALOPITHECINES: ANCESTORS OF THE AFRICAN APES?
Human Evolution 9: 121-139, 1994
Since australopithecines display humanlike traits such as short ilia, relatively small front teeth and thick molar enamel, they are usually assumed to be related to Homo rather than to Pan or Gorilla. However, this assumption is not supported by many other of their features.
This paper briefly surveys the literature concerning craniodental comparisons of australopith species with those of bonobos, common chimps, humans and gorillas, adult and immature. It will be argued, albeit on fragmentary data, that the large australopiths of East Africa were in many instances anatomically and therefore possibly also evolutionarily nearer to Gorilla than to Pan or Homo, and the South African australopiths nearer to Pan and Homo than to Gorilla. An example of a possible evolutionary tree is provided. It is suggested that the evidence concerning the relation of the different australopithecines with humans, chimpanzees and gorillas should be re-evaluated.

• “The evolution of the australopithecine crania was the antithesis of the Homo line. Instead of becoming less ape-like, as in Homo, they become more ‘ape-like’. Cranial proportions and ectocranial features that were thought to be unique among pongids evolved separately [? M. V.] in the australopithecines parallel [? M. V.] with the great apes. The features of KNM-WT 17000, therefore, are not as ‘primitive’ as they look. The robust Australopithecus did not evolve from a big-toothed pongid ancestor with large cranial superstructures, but from a small-toothed hominid with a rounder, smoother ectocranium, like A. africanus”. Ferguson, 1989b.
• “Plio-Pleistocene hominids had markedly abbreviated [enamel] growth periods relative to modern man, similar to those of the modem great apes”. Bromage & Dean, 1985.
• “Enamel thickness has been secondarily reduced in the African apes and also, although at a different rare and extent, in the orang-utan. Thick enamel, previously the most important characteristic in arguments about the earliest hominid, does not therefore identify a hominid”. Martin, 1985 (but Beynon et al., 1991).
• In the South African fossils including Taung, “sulcal patterns of seven australopithecine encocasts appear to be ape-like rather than human-like”. Falk, 1987.
• “Cranial capacity, the relationship between endocast and skull, sulcal pattern, brain shape and cranial venous sinuses, all of these features appear to be consistent with an ape-like external cortical morphology in Hadar early hominids”. Falk, 1985.
• In the type specimen of A. afarensis, “the lower third premolar of ‘A. africanus afarensis’ LH-4 is completely apelike”. Ferguson, 1987b.
• “A. afarensis is much more similar cranially to the modern African apes than to modern humans”. Schoenemann, 1989.
• “Olson's assertion that the lateral inflation of the A.L. 333-45 mastoids is greater than in any extant ape is incorrect if the fossil is compared to P. troglodytes males or some Gorilla males and females. Moreover, the pattern of pneumatization in A. afarensis is also found only in the extant apes among other hominoids”. Kimbel et al., 1984.
• “Prior to the identification of A. afarensis the asterionic notch was thought to characterize only the apes among hominoids. Kimbel and Rak relate this asterionic sutural figuration to the pattern of cranial cresting and temporal bone pneumatization shared by A. afarensis and the extant apes”. Kimbel et al., 1984.
• “... the fact that two presumed Paranthropus [robustus] skulls were furnished with high sagittal crests implied that they had also possessed powerful occipital crests and ape-like planum nuchale... Nuchal crests which are no more prominent - and indeed some less prominent - will be found in many adult apes”. Zuckerman, 1954b.
• In Sts.5, MLD-37/38, SK-47, SK-48, SK-83, Taung, KNM-ER 406, O.H.24 and O.H.5, “craniometric analysis showed that they had marked similarities to those of extant pongids. These basicranial similarities between Plio-Pleistocene hominids and extant apes suggest that the upper respiratory systems of these groups were also alike in appearance... Markedly flexed basicrania [are] found only in modern humans after the second year...”. Laitman & Heimbuch, 1982.
• “The total morphological pattern with regard to the nasal region of Australopithecus can be characterized by a flat, non-protruding nasal skeleton which does not differ qualitatively from the extant nonhuman hominoid pattern, one which is in marked contrast to the protruding nasal skeleton of modern H. sapiens”. Franciscus & Trinkaus, 1988.

• “Incisal dental microwear in A. afarensis is most similar to that observed in Gorilla”. Ryan & Johanson, 1989.
• The composite skull reconstructed mostly from A.L.333 specimens “looked very much like a small female gorilla”. Johanson & Edey, 1981, p. 351.
• “Other primitive [or advanced gorilla-like? M. V.] features found in KNM-WT 17000, but not know or much discussed for A. afarensis, are: very small cranial capacity; low posterior profile of the calvaria; nasals extended far above the frontomaxillar suture and well onto an uninflated glabella; and extremely convex inferolateral margins of the orbits such as found in some gorillas”. Walker et al., 1986.
• As for the maximum parietal breadth and the biauriculare in O.H.5 and KNM-ER 406 “the robust australopithecines have values near the Gorilla mean: both the pongids and the robust australopithecines have highly pneumatized bases”. Kennedy, 1991 (see also his fig. 1).
• In O.H.5, “the curious and characteristic features of the Paranthropus skull... parallel some of those of the gorilla”. Robinson, 1960.
• The A. boisei “lineage has been characterized by sexual dimorphism of the degree seen in modern Gorilla for the length of its known history”. Leakey & Walker, 1988.
• A. boisei teeth showed “a relative absence of prism decussation”; among extant hominoids, “Gorilla enamel showed relatively little decussation ...”. Beynon & Wood, 1986 (cf. Beynon et al., 1991).

• “Alan [Walker] has analysed a number of Australopithecus robustus teeth and they fall into the fruit-eating category. More precisely, their teeth patterns look like those of chimpanzees... Then, when be looked at some Homo erectus teeth, be found that the pattern changed”. Leakey, 1981, pp. 74-75.
• “The ‘keystone’ nasal bone arrangement suggested as a derived diagnostic of Paranthropus [robustus] is found in an appreciable number of pongids, particularly clearly in some chimpanzees”. Eckhardt, 1987.
• “P. paniscus provides a suitable comparison for Australopithecus [Sts.5]; they are similar in body size, postcranial dimensions and.... even in cranial and facial features”. Zihlman et al., 1978.
• “A. africanus Sts.5, which... falls well within the range of Pan troglodytes, is markedly prognathous or hyperprognathous”". Ferguson, 1989a.
• In Taung, “I see nothing in the orbits, nasal bones, and canine teeth definitely nearer to the human condition than the corresponding parts of the skull of a modern young chimpanzee”. Woodward, 1925.
• “The Taung juvenile seems to resemble a young chimpanzee more closely than it resembles L338y-6”, a juvenile A. boisei. Rak & Howell, 1978.
• “In addition to similarities in facial remodeling it appears that Taung and Australopithecus in general, had maturation periods similar to those of the extant chimpanzee”. Bromage, 1985.
• “I estimate an adult capacity for Taung ranging from 404-420 cm2, with a mean of 412 cm2. Application of Passingham’s curve for brain development in Pan is preferable to that for humans because (a) brain size of early hominids approximates that of chimpanzees, and (b) the curves for brain volume relative to body weight are essentially parallel in pongids and australopithecines, leading Hofman to conclude that ‘as with pongids, the australopithecines probably differed only in size, not in design’”. Falk, 1987.
• In Taung, “pneumatization has also extended into the zygoma and hard palate. This is intriguing because an intrapalatal extension of the maxillary sinus has only been reported in chimpanzees and robust australopithecines among higher primates”. Bromage & Dean, 1985.
• “That the fossil ape Australopithecus [Taung] ‘is distinguished from all living apes by the... unfused nasal bones…’ as claimed by Dart (1940), cannot be maintained in view of the very considerable number of cases of separate nasal bones among orang-utans and chimpanzees of ages corresponding to that of Australopithecus”. Schultz, 1941.

On Sun, 25 Jul 2021 11:30:57 -0700 (PDT), "littor...@gmail.com"
<littoral.homo@gmail.com> wrote:

>> >> Notice how almost all these refs are pre-1990, disregarding 30 years
>
>> >:-DDD
>> >Sigh.
>> >If you a *little* bit informed, you had known they come from my 1994 paper
>> >"Australopithecines: ancestors of the African apes?"
>> >Hum Evol 9:121-139
>
>> That paper is also 27 years outdated.
>
>Yes, my boy, that's what I'm repeating:
>you're the most stupid of the traditional anthropocentric PAs.

How can PA not be anthropocentric? It's about human evolution, not
about the evolution of equids or proboscideans.

>And that's not easy:
>the ridiculous papers you mentioned but I snipped *assume* that apiths are closer relatives of us than of Afr.apes,

Obviously you haven't read any of those papers or you didn't
understand them. The authors did not assume that apiths are closer to
humans than to African apes, but they tested that hypothesis and found
it to be most parsimonious/probable.

>whereas I *proved* that that's wrong:

At most you showed some overall morphological similarity between
apiths and African apes, but that does not imply a closer phylogenetic
relationship. You have to distinguish between plesiomorphic and
(syn)apomorphic characters. Only the latter are indicative of
relatedness at a specified level.
Therefore, everyone of these later papers, on the basis of much more
(recent) data and improved research methods, falsify your hypothesis:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2004.08.008

https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2015.0943

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.03.006

Live with it.

littor...@gmail.com wrote:

> Humans don't descend from apiths themselves, but chimps & gorillas do:

The best evidence says chimps did not. That, they diverged much later.

> the evidence is overwhelming:

There's no evidence for it what so ever.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/657386636705923072

Some kudu runner:

> >> >> Notice how almost all these refs are pre-1990, disregarding 30 years

> >> >:-DDD Sigh.
> >> >If you a *little* bit informed, you had known they come from my 1994 paper
> >> >"Australopithecines: ancestors of the African apes?"
> >> >Hum Evol 9:121-139

> >> That paper is also 27 years outdated.

> >Yes, my boy, that's what I'm repeating:
> >you're the most stupid of the traditional anthropocentric PAs.

> How can PA not be anthropocentric? It's about human evolution

Yes, probably the most stupid.
Egocentric - Eurocentric - Anthropocentric - ...
"Anthropocentrism is the belief that value is human-centred and that all other beings are means to human ends."

Anthropocentrism = the belief
- that we have flat feet to run after kudus,
- that we are naked because it's beautiful, or to sweat in savannas,
- that we became BP to run after kudus,
- that we are fat because...???

On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 12:46:04 -0700 (PDT), "littor...@gmail.com"
<littoral.homo@gmail.com> wrote:

>Some kudu runner:
>
>> >> >> Notice how almost all these refs are pre-1990, disregarding 30 years
>
>> >> >:-DDD Sigh.
>> >> >If you a *little* bit informed, you had known they come from my 1994 paper
>> >> >"Australopithecines: ancestors of the African apes?"
>> >> >Hum Evol 9:121-139
>
>> >> That paper is also 27 years outdated.
>
>> >Yes, my boy, that's what I'm repeating:
>> >you're the most stupid of the traditional anthropocentric PAs.
>
>> How can PA not be anthropocentric? It's about human evolution
>
>Yes, probably the most stupid.
>Egocentric - Eurocentric - Anthropocentric - ...
>
>"Anthropocentrism is the belief that value is human-centred and that all other beings are means to human ends."

Look around you.
Even our beloved pets serve us.
(we've domesticated them)

>Anthropocentrism = the belief
>- that we have flat feet to run after kudus,

We don't have flat feet, we have arched feet.

>- that we are naked because it's beautiful,

What turns you on? Shaved or unshaved legs?

>or to sweat in savannas,

Or anywhere else where you need increased thermoregulation relative to
nonhuman primates.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2021722118

>- that we became BP to run after kudus,

Don't confuse an advanced phase in the evolution of BP with its
origin.

>- that we are fat because...???

we consume to many calories in relation to exercise.