Re: hominid species

[Stan Friesen <swf@ElSegundoCA.ATTGIS.COM>]

>From: Tom Holtz <tholtz@geochange.er.usgs.gov>
 >
 > A. ramidus ('ramid' is "root" in Afar) lacks any derived character of
 > either Australopithecus, Paranthropus, or Homo, and is now in its own
 > genus, Ardipitheus.
 >
Caramba!  Does it have any derived characters that rule it out as
an ancestor of chimps and/or gorillas???

Could we have actually found the common ancestor of the living
African apes???
 > 
 > ...  The following taxonomy is based primarily on the
 > contributions of B. Wood.
 > 
 > A. ramidus ('ramid' is "root" in Afar) lacks any derived character of
 > either Australopithecus, Paranthropus, or Homo, and is now in its own
 > genus, Ardipitheus.
 > 
 > Australopithecus retains the gracile species A. afarensis and A. africanus.
 > 
 > Paranthropus is the name for the robust speceies, P. robustus and P. bosei
 > (and maybe P. aethiopicus). ...

I would say very likely - this is a case where I believe reversals
are likely.
 > 
 > Homo now includes at least H. habilis, H. erectus, H. neanderthalensis, and
 > H. sapiens, and possibly a couple of other species (H. ergaster for the
 > African "erectus"; H. heidelbergensis for the early "Neandertal" types;
 > etc.)

Based on a "recent" monograph on Homo erectus, I have concluded that
Homo ergaster falls pretty well within the range of variation found
in H. erectus elsewhere.  The differences are really fairly minor.

Also, I would mention Homo rudolphensis as a possible segregate from
Homo habilis.  This is still quite controversial, but I have yet
to see any *conclusive* refutations.

swf@elsegundoca.attgis.com              sarima@netcom.com

The peace of God be with you.