kudu runner mentioned this interesting article, believing that it somewhere contradicted that australopiths were fossil apes, not humans:

Expanded character sampling underscores phylogenetic stability of Ardipithecus ramidus as a basal hominin
Carrie S Mongle, David S Strait & Frederick E Grine 2019 JHE 131:28-39.
doi 10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.03.006

Phylogenetic relationships among hominins provide a necessary framework for assessing their evolution.
Reconstructing these relationships hinges on the strength of the character data analyzed.
The phylogenetic position of Ardip.ramidus is critical to understanding early hominin evolution,
- many accept that it is most likely the sister-taxon to all later hominins,
- others have argued that Ar.ramidus was ancestral to Pan.

Although the study by Strait & Grine (2004) suggested the former, available evidence permitted only 26 % of characters in their matrix to be assessed for Ar.ramidus.
Fossils described subsequently by Suwa, White cs (2009) have enabled the nr of characters that can be coded for this species to be expanded to 78 % of the matrix.

Here, we incorporate these new character data, to evaluate their impact on the phylogenetic relationships of Ar.ramidus,
we have further revised the Strait & Grine (2004) matrix as necessitated by additions to the hypodigms of other fossil taxa.
This updated matrix was analyzed (parsimony & Bayesian techniques) in a sequence of 4 iterative steps, to independently evaluate the impact of matrix & expanded character revisions on tree topology.
Despite the new data & matrix revisions, tree topology has remained remarkably stable.
The addition of new cranio-dental material has served to markedly strengthen the support for the placement of Ar.ramidus as
- being derived relative to Sahelanthropus,
- the sister-taxon of all later hominins.
These findings support the phylogenetic hypothesis originally proposed by White cs (1994).
This updated matrix provides a basis for the assessment of additional extinct spp.

____

1) This nowhere contradicts my 1994 & 1996 articles, of course, see below.
2) Papers that use prejudiced terms like "hominin" & "derived" are +-worthless. Logica please!
3) Ardip 5 Ma & even more so Sahelantr c 7 Ma are not far from the HP/G split 7 or 8 Ma.
4) They still assume that BP = "hominin" (but *all* Hominoidea were BP=aquarboreal).
etc.

Hum.Evol.9:121-139, 1994
Since australopithecines display humanlike traits such as short ilia, relatively small front teeth & 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 spp with those of bonobos, common chimps, humans and gorillas, adult and immature. It will be argued, albeit on fragmentary data:
- the large australopiths of E.Africa were in many instances anatomically & therefore possibly also evolutionarily nearer to Gorilla than to Pan or Homo,
- the S.African australopiths nearer to Pan & Homo than to Gorilla. ...

Hum.Evol.11: 35-41, 19961996:
This comparison of 37 cranio-dental characters of fossil & living apes & humans yields no indication that any of the australopithecine species has evolved in the human direction.
- S.African australopithecine skulls are morphologically closest to the chimpanzee among the living hominoids,
- A.boisei is closest to the gorilla among the living hominoids. ...

These 2 papers + a lot of other information suggests that E & S.African apiths evolved in parallel, in the northern vs the southern Rift:
from late-Pliocene "gracile" to early-Pleistocene "robust" to today "knuckle-walking":
- E.Africa: afarensis->boisei->gorilla
- S.Africa: africanus->robustus->bonobo/chimp

littor...@gmail.com wrote:

> kudu runner mentioned this interesting article, believing that it somewhere contradicted
> that australopiths were fossil apes, not humans:

At this point, can you trust them?

It seems that they can say anything, really anything at all, & even the most proud
and active "Academic" will staunchly defend it. At this point Naledi didn't just
bury it's dead, it breathed smoke! It dragged antelope down into the depths of
those caves with it, and cooked them! It had "Modern" brains bigger or at least as
big as habilis. A a slew of paleoanthropologiests working the site for six years
never once looked up, peaked into another cavern or noticed that they were
dragging themselves over the remains of campfires EVERY! DAY!

OF COURSE IT'S ALL TRUE! As a matter of fact, I'm a heretic for even questioning
this stuff.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/706396332513951744

On Fri, 13 Jan 2023 13:40:20 -0800 (PST), "littor...@gmail.com"
<littoral.homo@gmail.com> wrote:

>kudu runner mentioned this interesting article, believing that it somewhere contradicted that australopiths were fossil apes, not humans:
>
>Expanded character sampling underscores phylogenetic stability of Ardipithecus ramidus as a basal hominin
>Carrie S Mongle, David S Strait & Frederick E Grine 2019 JHE 131:28-39.
>doi 10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.03.006
>
>Phylogenetic relationships among hominins provide a necessary framework for assessing their evolution.
>Reconstructing these relationships hinges on the strength of the character data analyzed.
>The phylogenetic position of Ardip.ramidus is critical to understanding early hominin evolution,
>- many accept that it is most likely the sister-taxon to all later hominins,
>- others have argued that Ar.ramidus was ancestral to Pan.
>
>Although the study by Strait & Grine (2004) suggested the former, available evidence permitted only 26 % of characters in their matrix to be assessed for Ar.ramidus.
>Fossils described subsequently by Suwa, White cs (2009) have enabled the nr of characters that can be coded for this species to be expanded to 78 % of the matrix.
>
>Here, we incorporate these new character data, to evaluate their impact on the phylogenetic relationships of Ar.ramidus,
>we have further revised the Strait & Grine (2004) matrix as necessitated by additions to the hypodigms of other fossil taxa.
>This updated matrix was analyzed (parsimony & Bayesian techniques) in a sequence of 4 iterative steps, to independently evaluate the impact of matrix & expanded character revisions on tree topology.
>Despite the new data & matrix revisions, tree topology has remained remarkably stable.
>The addition of new cranio-dental material has served to markedly strengthen the support for the placement of Ar.ramidus as
>- being derived relative to Sahelanthropus,
>- the sister-taxon of all later hominins.
>These findings support the phylogenetic hypothesis originally proposed by White cs (1994).
>This updated matrix provides a basis for the assessment of additional extinct spp.
>
>____
>
>1) This nowhere contradicts my 1994 & 1996 articles, of course, see below.

Except that it recovers Sahelanthropus, Ardipithecus,
Australopithecus, Paranthropus and Homo as a clade to the exclusion of
Pan and Gorilla, which logically excludes their ancestry to the latter
two.
But that's only a minor detail.

>2) Papers that use prejudiced terms like "hominin" & "derived" are +-worthless. Logica please!

"Derived" (apomorphic) is a perfectly good evolutionary concept.
As such the wing of Archaeopteryx is derived relative to the forelimb
of nonavian theropods. Or do you think that all nonavian theropod
dinosaurs were flightless birds?

>3) Ardip 5 Ma & even more so Sahelantr c 7 Ma are not far from the HP/G split 7 or 8 Ma.

But on the human side of it, as Mongle, strait & Grine (2019) have
shown with much more data and better methods than you almost 30 years
ago.

>4) They still assume that BP = "hominin" (but *all* Hominoidea were BP=aquarboreal).
>etc.

Recent phylogenetic analysis indeed supports the hypothesis that the
combination of a non-honing C-P3 complex and habitual bipedalism is a
synapomorphic signature of a hominin clade.
That's not an assumption but an inference.

> >kudu runner mentioned this interesting article, believing that it somewhere contradicted that australopiths were fossil apes, not humans:
> >Expanded character sampling underscores phylogenetic stability of Ardipithecus ramidus as a basal hominin
> >Carrie S Mongle, David S Strait & Frederick E Grine 2019 JHE 131:28-39.
> >doi 10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.03.006
> >Phylogenetic relationships among hominins provide a necessary framework for assessing their evolution.
> >Reconstructing these relationships hinges on the strength of the character data analyzed.
> >The phylogenetic position of Ardip.ramidus is critical to understanding early hominin evolution,
> >- many accept that it is most likely the sister-taxon to all later hominins,
> >- others have argued that Ar.ramidus was ancestral to Pan.
> >Although the study by Strait & Grine (2004) suggested the former, available evidence permitted only 26 % of characters in their matrix to be assessed for Ar.ramidus.
> >Fossils described subsequently by Suwa, White cs (2009) have enabled the nr of characters that can be coded for this species to be expanded to 78 % of the matrix.
> >Here, we incorporate these new character data, to evaluate their impact on the phylogenetic relationships of Ar.ramidus,
> >we have further revised the Strait & Grine (2004) matrix as necessitated by additions to the hypodigms of other fossil taxa.
> >This updated matrix was analyzed (parsimony & Bayesian techniques) in a sequence of 4 iterative steps, to independently evaluate the impact of matrix & expanded character revisions on tree topology.
> >Despite the new data & matrix revisions, tree topology has remained remarkably stable.
> >The addition of new cranio-dental material has served to markedly strengthen the support for the placement of Ar.ramidus as
> >- being derived relative to Sahelanthropus,
> >- the sister-taxon of all later hominins.
> >These findings support the phylogenetic hypothesis originally proposed by White cs (1994).
> >This updated matrix provides a basis for the assessment of additional extinct spp.

> >1) This nowhere contradicts my 1994 & 1996 articles, of course, see below.

> Except that it recovers Sahelanthropus, Ardipithecus,
> Australopithecus, Paranthropus and Homo as a clade to the exclusion of
> Pan and Gorilla, which logically excludes their ancestry to the latter
> two. But that's only a minor detail.

No, it's wrong.

> >2) Papers that use prejudiced terms like "hominin" & "derived" are +-worthless. Logica please!

> "Derived" (apomorphic) is a perfectly good evolutionary concept.

Yes, but the kudu runners believe ape=primitive.
In fact, Gorilla is derived vs Lucy!

> As such the wing of Archaeopteryx is derived relative to the forelimb
> of nonavian theropods. Or do you think that all nonavian theropod
> dinosaurs were flightless birds?

My little, little boy, why don't your waste your own time: we're not discussing dinos...
Afr.apes are derived vs apiths.

> >3) Ardip 5 Ma & even more so Sahelantr c 7 Ma are not far from the HP/G split 7 or 8 Ma.

> But on the human side of it,

:-DDD
8 Ma, Homo=Pan, my little little boy!!
8 Ma, your "human side" & "chimp side" were identical!

> >as Mongle, strait & Grine (2019) have
> shown with much more data and better methods than you almost 30 years
> ago.

My little little little boy (you're becoming more+more infantile),
30 yrs ago I already clearly showed in several papers that
- apiths have 0 to do with Homo:
- E.Afr.afar.->boisei were G, not HP,
- S.Afr.afric.->robustus were P, not H & certainly not G.
And all more recent infm has confirmed this.
Ardip & Sahelantr have 0 to do with this. Zero:
a *little* bit of logica, please: grow up!

> >4) They still assume that BP = "hominin" (but *all* Hominoidea were BP=aquarboreal).

> Recent phylogenetic analysis indeed supports the hypothesis that the
> combination of a non-honing C-P3 complex and habitual bipedalism is a
> synapomorphic signature of a hominin clade.
> That's not an assumption but an inference.

:-DDD
Only kudu runners are so idiotic to talk about "hominins":
papers with the word "hominin" *assume* that apiths are more closely related to H than to P or G.
Can you be less scientific??
Grow up.
And for once, try to *think* a *little* bit, my little boy.

Pandora wrote:

> Except that it recovers Sahelanthropus, Ardipithecus,
> Australopithecus, Paranthropus and Homo as a clade to the exclusion of
> Pan and Gorilla

"Oh! It's not me. I'm not doing it. Nobody is, no person. IT is doing it! Not
me. Not us. IT is doing it!"

You won't even take ownership of your own thoughts! No wonder you're
so offended by the good Doctor contradicting the status quo!

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/706451099754921984

On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 06:18:39 -0800 (PST), "littor...@gmail.com"
<littoral.homo@gmail.com> wrote:

>> >kudu runner mentioned this interesting article, believing that it somewhere contradicted that australopiths were fossil apes, not humans:
>> >Expanded character sampling underscores phylogenetic stability of Ardipithecus ramidus as a basal hominin
>> >Carrie S Mongle, David S Strait & Frederick E Grine 2019 JHE 131:28-39.
>> >doi 10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.03.006
>> >Phylogenetic relationships among hominins provide a necessary framework for assessing their evolution.
>> >Reconstructing these relationships hinges on the strength of the character data analyzed.
>> >The phylogenetic position of Ardip.ramidus is critical to understanding early hominin evolution,
>> >- many accept that it is most likely the sister-taxon to all later hominins,
>> >- others have argued that Ar.ramidus was ancestral to Pan.
>> >Although the study by Strait & Grine (2004) suggested the former, available evidence permitted only 26 % of characters in their matrix to be assessed for Ar.ramidus.
>> >Fossils described subsequently by Suwa, White cs (2009) have enabled the nr of characters that can be coded for this species to be expanded to 78 % of the matrix.
>> >Here, we incorporate these new character data, to evaluate their impact on the phylogenetic relationships of Ar.ramidus,
>> >we have further revised the Strait & Grine (2004) matrix as necessitated by additions to the hypodigms of other fossil taxa.
>> >This updated matrix was analyzed (parsimony & Bayesian techniques) in a sequence of 4 iterative steps, to independently evaluate the impact of matrix & expanded character revisions on tree topology.
>> >Despite the new data & matrix revisions, tree topology has remained remarkably stable.
>> >The addition of new cranio-dental material has served to markedly strengthen the support for the placement of Ar.ramidus as
>> >- being derived relative to Sahelanthropus,
>> >- the sister-taxon of all later hominins.
>> >These findings support the phylogenetic hypothesis originally proposed by White cs (1994).
>> >This updated matrix provides a basis for the assessment of additional extinct spp.
>
>> >1) This nowhere contradicts my 1994 & 1996 articles, of course, see below.
>
>> Except that it recovers Sahelanthropus, Ardipithecus,
>> Australopithecus, Paranthropus and Homo as a clade to the exclusion of
>> Pan and Gorilla, which logically excludes their ancestry to the latter
>> two. But that's only a minor detail.
>
>No, it's wrong.

You should not just say but also prove them wrong with their data and
methods, and then submit your paper to JHE.
Can you do that?

>30 yrs ago I already clearly showed in several papers that
>- apiths have 0 to do with Homo:
>- E.Afr.afar.->boisei were G, not HP,
>- S.Afr.afric.->robustus were P, not H & certainly not G.
>And all more recent infm has confirmed this.
>Ardip & Sahelantr have 0 to do with this. Zero:

Those papers have now been superseded by much more comprehensive
recent work:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.03.006

What characterizes you 30 years later is the rigid and dogmatic
attitude of an old guy who can't keep up with the new data and
methods.

On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 12:38:55 -0800 (PST), JTEM is so reasonable
<jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:

>Pandora wrote:
>
>> Except that it recovers Sahelanthropus, Ardipithecus,
>> Australopithecus, Paranthropus and Homo as a clade to the exclusion of
>> Pan and Gorilla
>
>"Oh! It's not me. I'm not doing it. Nobody is, no person. IT is doing it! Not
>me. Not us. IT is doing it!"
>
>You won't even take ownership of your own thoughts!

I was referring this paper:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.03.006

Are you with us again?

>No wonder you're so offended by the good Doctor contradicting the status quo!

I'm just not such an ass-kisser and boot-licker like you.

Pandora wrote:

> I was referring this paper:
> https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.03.006

Which is hardly inconsistent with the good Doctor's ideas.

Not that I worship such studies as gospel, that was that here clearly do,
but even if we take their FINDINGS as 100% spot-on, there's plenty to
argue with in their conclusions.

You can posit a relationship, that isn't the issue, it's explaining the HOW
and WHY.

So your interpretation of the cite clearly betrays your pre conceived
notions.

It exactly fits the model I support, which is based on the good Doctor's
arguments, even if he doesn't like some of it, though I'm hardly excited
because, quite frankly, we all know Aquatic Ape is right and we should
stop pretending to argue IT and instead argue the details.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/706451099754921984