We still read a lot of "scientific" paleo-anthropological articles that use the term "hominin", meaning: humans + their fossil relatives H.erectus, the australopiths etc.
This is incredibly unscientific: they *assume* that australopiths are closer relatives of us than of chimp or gorilla, and base their articles on such unproven (IMO completely wrong) assumption.

On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 06:15:38 -0700 (PDT), "littor...@gmail.com"
<littoral.homo@gmail.com> wrote:

>We still read a lot of "scientific" paleo-anthropological articles that use the term "hominin", meaning: humans + their fossil relatives H.erectus, the australopiths etc.
>This is incredibly unscientific: they *assume* that australopiths are closer relatives of us than of chimp or gorilla, and base their articles on such unproven (IMO completely wrong) assumption.

We may even have to use the term homininans, members of the subtribe
Hominina, in order to recognize their distinction from Panina,
reflecting several recent phylogenetic analyses:

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

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1513-8/figures/13

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

Overwhelming, isn't it?

It's becoming common knowledge:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae

Op dinsdag 27 juli 2021 om 18:05:46 UTC+2 schreef Pandora:
> On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 06:15:38 -0700 (PDT), "littor...@gmail.com"
> <littor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >We still read a lot of "scientific" paleo-anthropological articles that use the term "hominin", meaning: humans + their fossil relatives H.erectus, the australopiths etc.
> >This is incredibly unscientific: they *assume* that australopiths are closer relatives of us than of chimp or gorilla, and base their articles on such unproven (IMO completely wrong) assumption.

> We may even have to use the term homininans

:-D That is even more stupid, my boy.

On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 12:33:56 -0700 (PDT), "littor...@gmail.com"
<littoral.homo@gmail.com> wrote:

>Op dinsdag 27 juli 2021 om 18:05:46 UTC+2 schreef Pandora:
>> On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 06:15:38 -0700 (PDT), "littor...@gmail.com"
>> <littor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >We still read a lot of "scientific" paleo-anthropological articles that use the term "hominin", meaning: humans + their fossil relatives H.erectus, the australopiths etc.
>> >This is incredibly unscientific: they *assume* that australopiths are closer relatives of us than of chimp or gorilla, and base their articles on such unproven (IMO completely wrong) assumption.
>
>> We may even have to use the term homininans
>
>:-D That is even more stupid, my boy.

It is the logical thing to do, in accordance with the PhyloCode and
recent phylogenetic analyses.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PhyloCode

The most compact definition, using one internal and one external
specifier, would then be: the most inclusive clade containing Homo
sapiens Linnaeus, 1758 but not Pan troglodytes (Blumenbach, 1775).

Reference phylogeny is fig. 2 or 3 in Mongle et al. 2019:

https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S004724841830143X-gr2.jpg
https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S004724841830143X-gr3.jpg

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

For now it includes Sahelanthropus, Ardipithecus, Australopithecus,
Paranthropus, Kenyanthropus, and Homo.

You'll get used to it.

Op woensdag 28 juli 2021 om 17:23:40 UTC+2 schreef Pandora:

> >> >We still read a lot of "scientific" paleo-anthropological articles that use the term "hominin", meaning: humans + their fossil relatives H.erectus, the australopiths etc.
> >> >This is incredibly unscientific: they *assume* that australopiths are closer relatives of us than of chimp or gorilla, and base their articles on such unproven (IMO completely wrong) assumption.

> >> We may even have to use the term homininans

> >:-D That is even more stupid, my boy.

> It is the logical thing to do, in accordance with the PhyloCode and
> recent phylogenetic analyses.

Are you really too stupid to understand??
Anthropocentric PAs reason: apiths are vertical, hence bipedal, hence "ancestors" of us,
but that's nonsense:
today only humans & hylobatids are "vertical", but during the Miocene
*all* hominoids had vertical ancestors, not for running bipedally, but for wading-climbing arms overhead,
google "aquarboreal".

> For now it includes Sahelanthropus, Ardipithecus, Australopithecus,
> Paranthropus, Kenyanthropus, and Homo.

These are hominoids, probably hominids.
It's not difficult, even you can understand, oogle
"ape human evolution made easy PPT verhaegen".

Hominoids:
-hylobatids = lesser apes gibbons + siamang
-great apes:
--pongids = Asian gr.apes = orang
--hominids = Afr.apes:
---Gorilla + fossil subgenus Praeanthropus afarensis, aethiopicus, boisei...
---Homo-Pan:
----Pan + fossil subgenus Australoithecus africanus, robustus...
----Homo erectus, neand., sapiens...
(Pan & Gorilla evolved in parallel knuckle-walking etc.)

Ape & human evolution:
-Miocene apes were aquarboreal (google)
-early-Pleistocene Homo became littoral along Ind.Ocean
-late-Pleist.H.sapiens = wading-walking.

Simple, no?
Nobody ran after antelopes.

On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 11:13:38 -0700 (PDT), "littor...@gmail.com"
<littoral.homo@gmail.com> wrote:

>Op woensdag 28 juli 2021 om 17:23:40 UTC+2 schreef Pandora:
>
>
>> >> >We still read a lot of "scientific" paleo-anthropological articles that use the term "hominin", meaning: humans + their fossil relatives H.erectus, the australopiths etc.
>> >> >This is incredibly unscientific: they *assume* that australopiths are closer relatives of us than of chimp or gorilla, and base their articles on such unproven (IMO completely wrong) assumption.
>
>> >> We may even have to use the term homininans
>
>> >:-D That is even more stupid, my boy.
>
>> It is the logical thing to do, in accordance with the PhyloCode and
>> recent phylogenetic analyses.
>
>Are you really too stupid to understand??

Still haven't read those phylogenetic papers?

>Anthropocentric PAs reason: apiths are vertical, hence bipedal, hence "ancestors" of us,
>but that's nonsense:

Nothing of that kind is assumed a priori. What they really do is
assess a large number of craniodental characters (e.g. position of
foramen magnum relative to bitympanic line, inclination of the nuchal
plane) in the taxa of interest, based on their respective hypodigms,
and then run the resulting datamatrix through an algorithm that
searches for the shortest tree such that the distribution of character
states is the most parsimonious.
The result is a monophyletic Hominina as defined earlier, with the
implication that bipedalism is a shared derived character of that
clade.

This hypothesis can then be tested independently with postcranial
material of the most basal members of that clade:
https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-69453/v1

>> For now it includes Sahelanthropus, Ardipithecus, Australopithecus,
>> Paranthropus, Kenyanthropus, and Homo.
>
>These are hominoids, probably hominids.
>It's not difficult, even you can understand, oogle
>"ape human evolution made easy PPT verhaegen".
>
>Hominoids:
>-hylobatids = lesser apes gibbons + siamang
>-great apes:
>--pongids = Asian gr.apes = orang
>--hominids = Afr.apes:
>---Gorilla + fossil subgenus Praeanthropus afarensis, aethiopicus, boisei...
>---Homo-Pan:
>----Pan + fossil subgenus Australoithecus africanus, robustus...
>----Homo erectus, neand., sapiens...
>(Pan & Gorilla evolved in parallel knuckle-walking etc.)
>
>Ape & human evolution:
>-Miocene apes were aquarboreal (google)
>-early-Pleistocene Homo became littoral along Ind.Ocean
>-late-Pleist.H.sapiens = wading-walking.
>
>Simple, no?

Simple, but not most parsimonious.

Op donderdag 29 juli 2021 om 15:43:21 UTC+2 schreef Pandora:

> >> >> >We still read a lot of "scientific" paleo-anthropological articles that use the term "hominin", meaning: humans + their fossil relatives H.erectus, the australopiths etc.
> >> >> >This is incredibly unscientific: they *assume* that australopiths are closer relatives of us than of chimp or gorilla, and base their articles on such unproven (IMO completely wrong) assumption.
> >> >> We may even have to use the term homininans

> >> >:-D That is even more stupid, my boy.

> >> It is the logical thing to do, in accordance with the PhyloCode and
> >> recent phylogenetic analyses.

> >Are you really too stupid to understand??

> Still haven't read those phylogenetic papers?

I've read everything, my boy (at least the abstracts).
Sahelanthropus, Ardipithecus, Australopithecus, "Paranthropus", Homo etc. are hominoids & probably hominids.
Hominoids:
-hylobatids = lesser apes gibbons + siamang
-great apes:
--pongids = Asian gr.apes = orang
--hominids = Afr.apes:
---Gorilla + fossil subgenus Praeanthropus afarensis, aethiopicus, boisei....
---Homo-Pan:
----Pan + fossil subgenus Australoithecus africanus, robustus...
----Homo erectus, neand., sapiens...
(Pan & Gorilla evolved in parallel knuckle-walking etc.)

Ape & human evolution:
-Miocene apes were aquarboreal (google)
-early-Pleistocene Homo became littoral along Ind.Ocean
-late-Pleist.H.sapiens = wading-walking.
Simple & parsimonious.
No need for endurance running nonsense:
Human Evolution 28: 237-266, 2013:
"It is often stated that human locomotion was an adaptation to running on the open plains, which is illustrated by expressions such as ‘Savannahstan’, ‘endurance running’, ‘born to run’, ‘le singe coureur’ etc., even on the cover of the most influential scientific journals. Verhaegen et al. (2007) disproved in detail all endurance running arguments (Bramble & Lieberman 2004) that our Homo ancestors during most of the Pleistocene were adapted to running over open plains. When we analyse human locomotion into more elementary components, the running ‘explanation’ appears to be a just-so interpretation (cherry-picking): Bramble & Lieberman (2004) interpret every locomotor trait in humans as having evolved ‘for’ running, without even considering possible wading or swimming scenarios. A comparative approach shows that, for each trait, semi-aquatic scenarios provide more parsimonious explanations (Table 4 in Verhaegen et al. 2007), and that extant human running is a secondary and conspicuously imperfect adaptation which evolved late in the human past, for instance, we run maximally 32 km/hr over short and 20 km/hr over long distances, about half as fast as typical open plain mammals."

On Thu, 29 Jul 2021 11:52:08 -0700 (PDT), "littor...@gmail.com"
<littoral.homo@gmail.com> wrote:

>Op donderdag 29 juli 2021 om 15:43:21 UTC+2 schreef Pandora:
>
>
>> >> >> >We still read a lot of "scientific" paleo-anthropological articles that use the term "hominin", meaning: humans + their fossil relatives H.erectus, the australopiths etc.
>> >> >> >This is incredibly unscientific: they *assume* that australopiths are closer relatives of us than of chimp or gorilla, and base their articles on such unproven (IMO completely wrong) assumption.
>
>> >> >> We may even have to use the term homininans
>
>> >> >:-D That is even more stupid, my boy.
>
>> >> It is the logical thing to do, in accordance with the PhyloCode and
>> >> recent phylogenetic analyses.
>
>> >Are you really too stupid to understand??
>
>> Still haven't read those phylogenetic papers?
>
>I've read everything, my boy (at least the abstracts).

Wow, you've read the whole abstract?!
And then you lost interest because:

a) The stuff is way over your head since you haven't kept up with
developments in phylogenetic systematics over the past 30 years.

b) You realize that it opposes your 30 year old dogma.