True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."--Queen Gertrude in Hamlet

You shouldn't "believe" anybody, not RAZD, not Percy and especially not the creationists who have been lying to you about evolution. If you have no creationist axe to grind, why do you go ballistic every time somebody challenges those lies?You should check out the resources that you've been offered.

Here's another source

quote:

---

Berkeley: The emergence of humans

​

The narratives of human evolution are oft-told and highly contentious. There are major disagreements in the field about whether human evolution is more like a branching tree or a crooked stick, depending partly on how many species one recognizes. Interpretations of almost every new find will be sure to find opposition among other experts. Disputes often center on diet and habitat, and whether a given animal could walk bipedally or was fully upright. What can we really tell about human evolution from our current understanding of the phylogenetic relations of hominids and the sequence of evolution of their traits?

​

​

We do know that by the time the animals known as Homo evolved, they could make tools, and their hands were well suited for complex manipulations. These features were eventually accompanied by the reduction of the lower face, particularly the jaws and teeth, the recession of the brow, the enlargement of the brain, the evolution of a more erect posture, and the evolution of a limb more adapted for extended walking and running (along with the loss of arboreally oriented features). The evogram shows the hypothesized order of acquisition of these traits. Yet each of the Homo species was unique in its own way, so human evolution should not be seen as a simple linear progression of improvement toward our own present-day form.

---

They don't give the Hom... names, but they do show some of the detail in the palaeos.com dendrogram, and it looks like I need to adjust my insertion slightly:

quote:

---

Primates: Dendrogram

​

Archonta
│
└─Primates MH
├─Strepsirhini MH
│ ├─Lorisiformes
│ └─Lemuriformes
│   ├─Indrioidea MH
│   └─Lemuroidea
└─┬─Adapiformes X
└─┬─Darwinius X
└─Haplorhini
├─Tarsiiformes MH
└─Anthropoidea MH
├─Platyrrhini ToL
└─Catarrhini
├─Cercopithecidae (baboon)
└─Hominoidea MH
├─Proconsul X
└─┬─Kenyapithecus X
└─┬─Hylobatidae (gibbons)
└─Hominidae? Hominoidae?
├─Dryopithecus X
└─┬─Pierolapithecus X
└─┬─Ponginae
│ ╞═Sivapithecus X
│ ├─Gigantopithecus X
│ └─Pongo (orangutans)
└─Homininae? Hominidae
├─Samburupithecus X
├─Nakalipithecus X
└─┬─Gorillini
│ ├─Chororapithecus X
│ └─Gorilla (gorillas)
└─Homininae
└─┬─Panini
│ └─┬─Pan troglodytes (chimpanzee)
│   └─Pan paniscus (bonobos)
└─Hominini
└─┬─Sahelanthropus X
├─Orrorin tugenensis
├─Ardipithecus X
└─┬─Australopithecus afarensis X
├?─Paranthropus aethiopicus (if descended from A afarensis) X 
├─Australopithecus garhi X 
└─┬─Australopithecus africanus X
└─┬─Paranthropus X
│ ├?─Paranthropus aethiopicus X
│ └─┬─Paranthropus robustus X
│   └─Paranthropus boisei X
└─┬─Kenyanthropus X
└─Homo
├─Homo habilis X
╘═╤═Homo erectus X
│ └─Homo floresiensis X
╘═╤═Homo heidelbergensis X
└─┬─Homo neanderthalensis X
└─Homo sapiens

---

So I have corrected the palaeos diagram to match the handprint.com diagram and the Berkeley image, and until further notice, I'll take this over wikipedia.With this nomenclature we have a Hom... designation for each of the major common ancestors in the bush path to human, and I believe that was the intent when these labels were (fairly recently) developed.

• Hominoidea - where the Hom lineage separates from (excludes) the baboons (Cercopithecidae)
  ​
• Hominoidae - where the Hom lineage separates from (excludes) the gibbons (Hylobatidae)
  ​
• Hominidae - where the Hom lineage separates from (excludes) the orangutans (Ponginae)
  ​
• Homininae - where the Hom lineage separates from (excludes) the gorillas (Gorillinae)
  ​
• Hominini - where the Hom lineage separates from (excludes) the chimpanzees (Panni)

Now I may be wrong, but that arrangement makes sense to me. They are, after all, just labels arbitrarily assigned for clarity of discussion.Hominoidae seems to be missing from all the wiki articles, so the taxonomists may have decided to simplify the names ... I don't know.abeThe more I look the confusider I gets ... here's more

quote:

---

Hominid and hominin — what’s the difference?.

​

The terms ‘hominid’ and ‘hominin’ are frequently used in human evolution.

​

New definitions

​

The most commonly used recent definitions are:

​

Hominid — the group consisting of all modern and extinct Great Apes (that is, modern humans, chimpanzees, gorillas and orang-utans plus all their immediate ancestors).

​

Hominin — the group consisting of modern humans, extinct human species and all our immediate ancestors (including members of the genera Homo, Australopithecus, Paranthropus and Ardipithecus).

---

That would confirm the Hominini classification similar to the Handprint image, but not much else.While I still have some trouble with using the graphic symbols, using this says to me that Darwinius and Haplorhini have a common ancestor and that common ancestor has a common ancestor with Adapiformes

  └─┬─Adapiformes X
└─┬─Darwinius X
└─Haplorhini 

While this would imply all three share a single common ancestor

  ├─Adapiformes X
├─Darwinius X
└─Haplorhini 

and that would be misleading.abe2

quote:

---

New World Encyclopedia: Hominidae

​

Hominidae is a taxonomic family of primates that today is commonly considered to include extant (living) and extinct humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans. In this taxonomic scheme, Hominidae is one of two families of apes (superfamily Hominoidea), the other family being Hylobatidae (the gibbons). Members of Hominidae (sometimes exclusive of humans) are known as the "great apes," while members of Hylobatidae are known as the "lesser apes."

​

Overview

​

The classification of Hominidae has been revised several times in the last few decades. Originally, Hominidae included only humans and their extinct relatives, with all other apes being placed in a separate family, the Pongidae (Simpson 1945). In the 1960s, utilizing techniques from molecular biology, the lesser apes were moved into their own family (Hylobatidae), with humans remaining in Hominidae, and the non-human great apes remaining in Pongidae.

​

​

Eventually, the other great apes (gorillas, orangutans, and chimpanzees) were placed into the family Hominidae along with humans, by demoting the Pongidae to a subfamily. Subsequently, it was decided that the African apes (chimpanzees and gorillas) were more closely related to each other than any of them are related to the organgutans, and the chimpanzees and gorillas were moved into the subfamily Homininae with humans, with orangutans remaining in the subfamily Pongidae. Chimpanzees and humans were further separated into the same tribe, Hominini, and humans and their extinct relatives further separated into the sub-tribe Hominina.

---

That would appear to confirm the wiki arrangement, but it is dated 29 August 2008, while the handprint.com site was last updated 10.08.2014. I have emailed Bruce and handprint.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : ..Edited by RAZD, : abeEdited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : ..

RAZD, great job on the tree. I am impressed by your coding ability!I just wanted to clarify something... I think you understand it, but how you phrased it made me feel it necessary to clarify. Those names indicate taxonomic rank, not ancestral identification.names ending in "-oidae" are superfamily (or epifamily)
names ending in "-idae" are family
ending in "-inae" are subfamily
ending in "-ini" are tribeSo essentially they are the names of the clades and everything after the name are a part of that clade and "Homin" is the base word. Taxonomic rank endingsI believe that Hominid is not an official taxonomic rank, but represents a clade that includes those groups listed.Hominin, however, is an official taxonomic rank No, not misleading. This would indicate an unresolved polytomy which simply means that it is uncertain which branching order would be the best hypothesis. It's possible that all three share a single common ancestor, but it is more likely that we just don't have enough information to resolve the relationships.What's "misleading" or confusing is that the branch tips you show in this example include different ranks. Adapiformes is an infraorder, Darwinius is a genus, and Haporhini is a suborder, so these should not resolve in a trichotomy. But I suspect you only used the names as examples maybe?-------The thing I find confusing about how your cladogram is depicted, is that taxonomic ranks look like they are at terminals rather than on branches. I see you tried to duplicate the dendrogram in your source, but there is some odd things happening and I don't think it is very clear. It a difficult tree to interpret.For example, I think Adapiformes should be a rank under Strepsirrhini with Darwinius under Adapiformes and Haporhini should be under Primates. Getting the taxonomic names to look more like they are on the branches and not the terminals would go a long way to being better able to see the relationships and solve some of the problems like this.But again, good job on the tree, I just think it is really hard to see the relationships.HBDEdited by herebedragons, : clarity

Thanks herebedragons, that was helpful. Where I get confused isHominoidea and
HominoidaeIs there another taxonomic rank here? above superfamily?I did email Bruce MacEvoy at handprint.com and he replied

quote:

---

hi paul,

​

primate biological classification is partly dependent on the state of evidence, partly on academic camps of interpretation, partly on the authority of pronouncements, partly on politics, and no small part on the innate human urge to just screw around with stuff.

​

my source was "The Tree of Life" by Lecointre and Le Guyader, but the two attached references indicate that terms between family hominidae and genus homo are potentially partisan. there's no harm to just picking your preference and using it.

​

What is the full taxonomy classification of humans? | Socratic
Object not found!

​

bruce

---

The first link yields

quote:

---

If you looking for a very accurate classification..

​

Domain: Eukaryota
Kindom: Animalia
(Sub-kindom: Eumetazoa)
(''branch'' : Bilateria)
(Superphylum : Deuterostomia)
Phylum Chordata
(Subphylum Vertebrata)
(Infraphylum Gnathostomata)
(Superclass Tetrapoda)
Class Mammalia
(Sub-class Theria)
(Infra-class Eutheria)
(Superorder Euarchontoglires)
(clade Euarchonta)
Order Primates
(Sub-order Haplorrhini)
(Infra-Ordine Simiiformes)
(Para-ordine Catarrhini)
(Super-Family Hominoidea)
Family Hominidae
(Sub-family Homininae)
(Trib Hominini)
(Sub-trib Hominina)
Genus Homo
Species sapiens

---

Which introduces Hominina to divide homo from pan (panina?) - which is also mentioned in the New World Encyclopedia article - but otherwise appears to match wiki etc. and it seems to say what you said

quote:

---

Order Primates
(Sub-order Haplorrhini)
(Infra-Ordine Simiiformes)
(Para-ordine Catarrhini)
(Super-Family Hominoidea)

---

Are you saying the top should be

Archonta
│
└─Primates MH
├─Strepsirhini MH
│ ├─Lorisiformes
│ ├─Lemuriformes
│ │  ├─Indrioidea MH
│ │  └─Lemuroidea
│ └─Adapiformes X
│   └─Darwinius X
└─Haplorhini 

The other link also says

quote:

---

Other species of Hominidae:

​

• The only living species generally considered to belong to the family Hominidae is H. sapiens.
  ​
• The Hominidae also include several species of Australopithecus (all extinct) and several fossil species and subspecies of our genus Homo, including H. habilis Leakey and Leakey and H. erectus (Dubois).
  ​
• Some zoologists have proposed that species of Pan (chimpanzees and bonobos) and Gorilla also be put into the family Hominidae, but retain their separate genus names. A few scientists even maintain that chimpanzees and bonobos ought to be members of the genus Homo, since they are so close to us genetically.

---

Which leads us to personal preferences in the continuing debate of classifications.So at this point I have -- from Haplorhini down:

      └─Haplorhini
├─Tarsiiformes MH
└─Anthropoidea MH
├─Platyrrhini ToL
└─Catarrhini
├─Cercopithecidae (baboon)
└─Hominoidea MH Hominoidae (superfamily)
├─Proconsul X
└─┬─Kenyapithecus X
└─┬─Hylobatidae (gibbons)
└─Hominidae (family)
├─Dryopithecus X
└─┬─Pierolapithecus X
└─┬─Ponginae (family)
│ ╞═Sivapithecus X
│ ├─Gigantopithecus X
│ └─Pongo (orangutans)
└─Homininae (subfamily)
├─Samburupithecus X
├─Nakalipithecus X
└─┬─Gorillini (tribe)
│ ├─Chororapithecus X
│ └─Gorilla (gorillas)
└─HomininaeHominini (tribe)
└─┬─Panina (subtribe)
│ └─┬─Pan troglodytes (chimpanzee)
│   └─Pan paniscus (bonobos)
└─Hominina (subtribe)
└─┬─Sahelanthropus X
├─Orrorin tugenensis
├─Ardipithecus X
└─┬─Australopithecus afarensis X
├?─Paranthropus aethiopicus (if descended from A afarensis) X 
├─Australopithecus garhi X 
└─┬─Australopithecus africanus X
└─┬─Paranthropus X
│ ├?─Paranthropus aethiopicus X
│ └─┬─Paranthropus robustus X
│   └─Paranthropus boisei X
└─┬─Kenyanthropus X
└─Homo
├─Homo habilis X
╘═╤═Homo erectus X
│ └─Homo floresiensis X
╘═╤═Homo heidelbergensis X
└─┬─Homo neanderthalensis X
└─Homo sapiens

Which should resolve the wiki etc issuesEnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : ..Edited by RAZD, : ...Edited by RAZD, : ...

Thanks guys for all your time spent here. It's complicated. I learned a lot!Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

The confusion of the various ranks named after Homo comes from changes in definition.Once upon a time, 'Hominidae' meant only humans and extinct relatives. The other great apes were classified in 'Pongidae'. The two collectively formed the superfamily Hominoidea.Then, along came the first molecular studies, which indicated that African apes were more closely related to humans than to orangutans. As it became more and more common to consider paraphyletic taxa invalid, taxonomists started to point out that Pongidae was not valid, at least not if it included gorillas and chimps. The change was slow, particularly because palaeoanthropologists had been so long accustomed to use 'hominid' to mean anything closer to us than apes. But to be monophyletic, either chimps and gorillas had to be moved into Hominidae, or a new 'Gorillidae' would need to be invented.The realisation from DNA studies that chimps were closer to us than they were to gorillas would have necessitated an additional Panidae, so the solution that eventually prevailed, and has by now been accepted pretty much universally, is to abolish Pongidae and subsume all great apes under Hominidae. Use of the narrower terms 'Homininae', 'Hominini' and 'Hominina' is not always consistent though, leading to confusion.As the for the question of the difference between Hominoidea and Hominoidae - the latter is a typo.

Yeah, I got that from several sites.Handprint.com (Bruce MacEvoy) is staying with his reference ("The Tree of Life" by Lecointre and Le Guyader, 2007) so I'm going to the library tomorrow.I also heard from Palaeos.com on facebook (Renato Filipe Vidal Santos):

quote:

---

So I'm now collecting commentary for further reference.

​

"Possibly a hangover from early limitations on web graphics that can be linked."

​

It's more than that. You can see an earlier example here, Wayback Machine . Consider it took me a few months to update the dendrograms from that earlier ASCII format to UTF-8 with box drawing characters, and that's because I messed up with search and replace and cleared all instances of multiple white space (which among other things formats the trees) or else I wouldn't have done it that early. Then adding to that the toil and travail I had elsewhere with yet other options for displaying phylogenies, DeviantArt: 404... , I can't imagine what it would be to convert all of that to images.

​

Besides the text conveys the same information with generally a smaller data footprint than images (slow internet here) and as said before can be edited more readily. The layout that only includes one letter of a name into the flow of the branches is simply to avoid the dendrogram from getting too wide for the page, or element it's contained in. As you'll note I have a good deal of dendrograms on the content menus at the top of pages. So this method is overall sufficiently compact and not too fiddly.

​

Perhaps HTML5 and CSS3 will bring new capabilities I'll be loathe to not use, but the site still needs to be brought up to speed regarding HTML4 and CSS2. We'll see how things go.

---

So that is the history behind the dendrogram formats.No feedback on the dendrogram alterations I suggested ... yet. (more to come?)So for now I'm sticking with this:

Archonta
│
└─Primates MH
├─Strepsirhini MH
│ ├─Lorisiformes
│ └─Lemuriformes
│   ├─Indrioidea MH
│   └─Lemuroidea
└─┬─Adapiformes X
└─┬─Darwinius X
└─Haplorhini
├─Tarsiiformes MH
└─Anthropoidea MH
├─Platyrrhini ToL
└─Catarrhini
├─Cercopithecidae (baboon)
└─Hominoidea MH Hominoidae (superfamily)
├─Proconsul X
└─┬─Kenyapithecus X
└─┬─Hylobatidae (gibbons)
└─Hominidae (family)
├─Dryopithecus X
└─┬─Pierolapithecus X
└─┬─Ponginae (family)
│ ╞═Sivapithecus X
│ ├─Gigantopithecus X
│ └─Pongo (orangutans)
└─Homininae (subfamily)
├─Samburupithecus X
├─Nakalipithecus X
└─┬─Gorillini (tribe)
│ ├─Chororapithecus X
│ └─Gorilla (gorillas)
└─Hominini (tribe)
└─┬─Panina (subtribe)
│ └─┬─Pan troglodytes (chimpanzee)
│   └─Pan paniscus (bonobos)
└─HomininiHominina (subtribe)
└─┬─Sahelanthropus X
├─Orrorin tugenensis
├─Ardipithecus X
└─┬─Australopithecus afarensis X
├?─Paranthropus aethiopicus (if descended from A afarensis) X 
├─Australopithecus garhi X 
└─┬─Australopithecus africanus X
└─┬─Paranthropus X
│ ├?─Paranthropus aethiopicus X
│ └─┬─Paranthropus robustus X
│   └─Paranthropus boisei X
└─┬─Kenyanthropus X
└─Homo
├─Homo habilis X
╘═╤═Homo erectus X
│ └─Homo floresiensis X
╘═╤═Homo heidelbergensis X
└─┬─Homo neanderthalensis X
└─Homo sapiens

EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

So I heard back from Palaeos (M. Alan Kazlev) by email:

quote:

---

Well, the only thing really is that the Linnaean ranks and the cladistic system are not interchangeable, as the former often includes paraphyletic taxa as a matter of course. Sure it works here but only because there's very few nodes. But it's no big deal. Not sure how Lecointre and Le Guyader address this issue.

​

I think there's some uncertainty as to whether Sahelanthropus is closer to the human or the chimp line, or maybe a common ancestor of both; I would just make it an unresolved trichotomy like this

​

Hominini (tribe)
|--Sahelanthropus
|--Panina (subtribe)
`--Hominina (subtribe)

​

at least until further fossil remains come up

---

So that gives me:

Archonta
│
└─Primates MH
├─Strepsirhini MH
│ ├─Lorisiformes
│ └─Lemuriformes
│   ├─Indrioidea MH
│   └─Lemuroidea
└─┬─Adapiformes X
└─┬─Darwinius X
└─Haplorhini
├─Tarsiiformes MH
└─Anthropoidea MH
├─Platyrrhini ToL
└─Catarrhini
├─Cercopithecidae (baboon)
└─Hominoidae (superfamily)
├─Proconsul X
└─┬─Kenyapithecus X
└─┬─Hylobatidae (gibbons)
└─Hominidae (family)
├─Dryopithecus X
└─┬─Pierolapithecus X
└─┬─Ponginae (family)
│ ╞═Sivapithecus X
│ ├─Gigantopithecus X
│ └─Pongo (orangutans)
└─Homininae (subfamily)
├─Samburupithecus X
├─Nakalipithecus X
└─┬─Gorillini (tribe)
│ ├─Chororapithecus X
│ └─Gorilla (gorillas)
└─Hominini (tribe)
└─┬?─Sahelanthropus X (possible common ancestor)
├─Panina (subtribe)
│ └─┬─Pan troglodytes (chimpanzee)
│   └─Pan paniscus (bonobos)
└─Hominina (subtribe)
├─Orrorin tugenensis
├─Ardipithecus X
└─┬─Australopithecus afarensis X
├?─Paranthropus aethiopicus (if descended from A afarensis) X 
├─Australopithecus garhi X 
└─┬─Australopithecus africanus X
└─┬─Paranthropus X
│ ├?─Paranthropus aethiopicus X
│ └─┬─Paranthropus robustus X
│   └─Paranthropus boisei X
└─┬─Kenyanthropus X
└─Homo
├─Homo habilis X
╘═╤═Homo erectus X
│ └─Homo floresiensis X
╘═╤═Homo heidelbergensis X
└─┬─Homo neanderthalensis X
└─Homo sapiens

More to comeEnjoy

Adding information from wikipedia on the other apes I get

Archonta
│
└─Primates MH
├─Strepsirhini MH
│ ├─Lorisiformes
│ └─Lemuriformes
│   ├─Indrioidea MH
│   └─Lemuroidea
└─┬─Adapiformes X
└─┬─Darwinius X
└─Haplorhini
├─Tarsiiformes MH
└─Anthropoidea MH
├─Platyrrhini ToL
└─Catarrhini
├─Cercopithecidae
│ └─Papionini (baboons)
│   ├─Papio hamadryas
│   ├─Papio papio
│   ├─Papio anubis
│   ├─Papio cynocephalus
│   └─Papio ursinus
└─Hominoidae (superfamily)
├─Proconsul X
└─┬─Kenyapithecus X
└─┬─Hylobatidae(gibbons)
│ ├─Hylobates
│ │ ├─Hylobates lar
│ │ ├─Hylobates agilis
│ │ ├─Hylobates albibarbis
│ │ ├─Hylobates muelleri
│ │ ├─Hylobates moloch
│ │ ├─Hylobates pileatus
│ │ └─Hylobates klossii
│ ├─Hoolock
│ │ ├─Hoolock hoolock
│ │ ├─Hoolock leuconedys
│ │ └─Hoolock tianxing
│ ├─Nomascus
│ │ ├─Nomascus concolor
│ │ ├─Nomascus gabriellae
│ │ ├─Nomascus leucogenys
│ │ └─Nomascus nasutus
│ └─Symphalangus
│   └─Symphalangus syndactylus
└─Hominidae (family)
├─Dryopithecus X
└─┬─Pierolapithecus X
└─┬─Ponginae (family)
│ ╞═Sivapithecus X
│ ├─Gigantopithecus X
│ └─Pongo (orangutans)
│   ├─Pongo borneo
│   ├─Pongo pygmaeus
│   ├─Pongo abelii
│   └─Pongo hooijeri
└─Homininae (subfamily)
├─Samburupithecus X
├─Nakalipithecus X
└─┬─Gorillini (tribe)
│ ├─Chororapithecus X
│ └─Gorilla (gorillas)
│   ├─Gorilla gorilla
│   └─Gorilla beringei
└─Hominini (tribe)
└─┬?─Sahelanthropus X (possible common ancestor)
├─Panina (subtribe)
│ └─┬─Pan troglodytes (chimpanzee)
│   └─Pan paniscus (bonobos)
└─Hominina (subtribe)
├─Orrorin tugenensis
├─Ardipithecus X
└─┬─Australopithecus afarensis X
├?─Paranthropus aethiopicus (if descended from A afarensis) X 
├─Australopithecus garhi X 
└─┬─Australopithecus africanus X
└─┬─Paranthropus X
│ ├?─Paranthropus aethiopicus X
│ └─┬─Paranthropus robustus X
│   └─Paranthropus boisei X
└─┬─Kenyanthropus X
└─Homo
├─Homo habilis X
╘═╤═Homo erectus X
│ └─Homo floresiensis X
╘═╤═Homo heidelbergensis X
└─┬─Homo neanderthalensis X
└─Homo sapiens

Enjoy

Sorry, I made a typo there.-oidea is the correct spelling for superfamily-oidae is used for epifamily (although I 'm not sure how often this is used. It seems as if in cladistics, they want a name for just about every clade, so that often requires additional ranks than what we are traditionally used to. ) First, I want to say that I am not any kind of authority on Primate evolution. Where my "expertise" lies is in phylogenetics and in reading/developing trees (I put expertise in quotes because I don't really consider myself an expert, I am still learning... maybe a better word would be "skill" but even that might be exaggeration )I like to use the Tree of Life Project (ToL) as a pretty good source for the latest taxonomic classifications. They may not include the most recent updates or the more controversial rearrangements, but they are pretty close. Taxonomy is very contentious (and the human tree even more so) and taxonomists argue and argue about their particular view until a general consensus is reached and then most researchers will adopt the consensus view, but it can take a while til the literature reflects the newest changes. With the advent of molecular methodology and now with deep sequencing techniques, the taxonomic world has gone crazy and there are many competing views on particular groups.But yes, I see that as an accurate depiction of that section. Here's why... This depiction shows Strepsirhini and Haplorhini as sister taxa, not descendants of one another. The lemurs and Adapiformes are descendants or branches within the Strepsirhini, not associated with Haplorhini. I am not sure about the arrangement you have under Strepsirhini, but it is close enough for this project, since it is not really the focus.This is in accordance with ToL - Primates. Haplorhini is not listed on the ToL page, but it is the group that includes Tarsiers, apes and new world monkeys. The branch leading to Platyhini and Catarrhini is the Simians or Simiiformes. On your chart it is listed as Anthropoidea.These names are controversial as to which has precedence. The root Simi is the oldest but the rank name Anthropoidea is older than the name Simiiformes (by 2 years). However, Simiiformes uses the proper rank suffix "-formes" while "-oidea" is supposed to be used for superfamily. So... I personally would favor Simiiformes as the proper name for the rank.You can see the kind of controversies that taxonomists argue about - name precedence and conformation to naming conventions is always a hot issue.I have more comments further down the tree, but I will have to come back to it later. Maybe we could move this discussion to a new thread? Idk, there doesn't seem to be much going on here right now, but I wouldn't want to clog up Porkin's thread with knowledge , but that's up to you. I think this could be a really great tree (actually it already is, it just needs some clarifications).HBD

And I had noticed that wiki used Simiiformes instead of Anthropoidea and google has no list for Hominoidae ... so no epifamily in use apparently.Okay, so now we have:

Archonta
│
└─Primates MH
└─Strepsirhini MH
├─Lorisiformes
├─Lemuriformes
│  ├─Indrioidea MH
│  └─Lemuroidea
├─Adapiformes X
│ └─Darwinius X
└─Haplorhini
├─Tarsiiformes MH
└─Simiiformes (or Anthropoidea)
├─Platyrrhini ToL
└─Catarrhini
├─Cercopithecidae
│ └─Papionini (baboons)
│   ├─Papio hamadryas
│   ├─Papio papio
│   ├─Papio anubis
│   ├─Papio cynocephalus
│   └─Papio ursinus
└─Hominoidea (superfamily)
├─Proconsul X
└─┬─Kenyapithecus X
└─┬─Hylobatidae(gibbons)
│ ├─Hylobates
│ │ ├─Hylobates lar
│ │ ├─Hylobates agilis
│ │ ├─Hylobates albibarbis
│ │ ├─Hylobates muelleri
│ │ ├─Hylobates moloch
│ │ ├─Hylobates pileatus
│ │ └─Hylobates klossii
│ ├─Hoolock
│ │ ├─Hoolock hoolock
│ │ ├─Hoolock leuconedys
│ │ └─Hoolock tianxing
│ ├─Nomascus
│ │ ├─Nomascus concolor
│ │ ├─Nomascus gabriellae
│ │ ├─Nomascus leucogenys
│ │ └─Nomascus nasutus
│ └─Symphalangus
│   └─Symphalangus syndactylus
└─Hominidae (family)
├─Dryopithecus X
└─┬─Pierolapithecus X
└─┬─Ponginae (family)
│ ╞═Sivapithecus X
│ ├─Gigantopithecus X
│ └─Pongo (orangutans)
│   ├─Pongo borneo
│   ├─Pongo pygmaeus
│   ├─Pongo abelii
│   └─Pongo hooijeri
└─Homininae (subfamily)
├─Samburupithecus X
├─Nakalipithecus X
└─┬─Gorillini (tribe)
│ ├─Chororapithecus X
│ └─Gorilla (gorillas)
│   ├─Gorilla gorilla
│   └─Gorilla beringei
└─Hominini (tribe)
└─┬?─Sahelanthropus X (possible common ancestor)
├─Panina (subtribe)
│ └─┬─Pan troglodytes (chimpanzee)
│   └─Pan paniscus (bonobos)
└─Hominina (subtribe)
├─Orrorin tugenensis
├─Ardipithecus X
└─┬─Australopithecus afarensis X
├?─Paranthropus aethiopicus (if descended from A afarensis) X 
├─Australopithecus garhi X 
└─┬─Australopithecus africanus X
└─┬─Paranthropus X
│ ├?─Paranthropus aethiopicus X
│ └─┬─Paranthropus robustus X
│   └─Paranthropus boisei X
└─┬─Kenyanthropus X
└─Homo
├─Homo habilis X
╘═╤═Homo erectus X
│ └─Homo floresiensis X
╘═╤═Homo heidelbergensis X
└─┬─Homo neanderthalensis X
└─Homo sapiens

I've requested the book through my local library, they will check the public libraries first and then the RI universities (URI, Brown, Roger Williams).EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : update info

Latest communication from Palaeos (Renato Filipe Vidal Santos):

quote:

---

"You can see the kind of controversies that taxonomists argue about - name precedence and conformation to naming conventions is always a hot issue."

​

You can say that again, HBD. Though, I do think that, if you're going to "play the game", then you should know the rules and follow them. Though you do have to consider the role of the methodological hangups of paleoanthropology in this: Just a moment... . I hear things have improved somewhat recently.

​

Tangentially, you might want to look into the literature yourself, RAZD, instead of relying on us to do the interpreting. Can't say I remember any quoting of scientific papers in that discussion, only tertiary references (like Wikipedia). I did notice the posts about geochronology in your FB timeline did include references to the primary literature.

​

"Paranthropus aethiopicus (if descended from A afarensis)"

​

If that's the intent then it isn't depicted correctly. Did some editing of my own:

​

---

and so ...

Archonta
│
└─Primates MH
└─Strepsirhini MH
├─Lorisiformes
├─Lemuriformes
│  ├─Indrioidea MH
│  └─Lemuroidea
├─Adapiformes X
│ └─Darwinius X
└─Haplorhini
├─Tarsiiformes MH
└─Simiiformes (or Anthropoidea)
├─Platyrrhini ToL
└─Catarrhini
├─Cercopithecidae
│ └─Papionini (baboons)
│   ├─Papio hamadryas
│   ├─Papio papio
│   ├─Papio anubis
│   ├─Papio cynocephalus
│   └─Papio ursinus
└─Hominoidea (superfamily)
├─Proconsul X
└─┬─Kenyapithecus X
└─┬─Hylobatidae (gibbons)
│ ├─Hylobates
│ │ ├─Hylobates lar
│ │ ├─Hylobates agilis
│ │ ├─Hylobates albibarbis
│ │ ├─Hylobates muelleri
│ │ ├─Hylobates moloch
│ │ ├─Hylobates pileatus
│ │ └─Hylobates klossii
│ ├─Hoolock
│ │ ├─Hoolock hoolock
│ │ ├─Hoolock leuconedys
│ │ └─Hoolock tianxing
│ ├─Nomascus
│ │ ├─Nomascus concolor
│ │ ├─Nomascus gabriellae
│ │ ├─Nomascus leucogenys
│ │ └─Nomascus nasutus
│ └─Symphalangus
│   └─Symphalangus syndactylus
└─Hominidae (family)
├─Dryopithecus X
└─┬─Pierolapithecus X
└─┬─Ponginae (family)
│ ╞═Sivapithecus X
│ ├─Gigantopithecus X
│ └─Pongo (orangutans)
│   ├─Pongo borneo
│   ├─Pongo pygmaeus
│   ├─Pongo abelii
│   └─Pongo hooijeri
└─Homininae (subfamily)
├─Samburupithecus X
├─Nakalipithecus X
└─┬─Gorillini (tribe)
│ ├─Chororapithecus X
│ └─Gorilla (gorillas)
│   ├─Gorilla gorilla
│   └─Gorilla beringei
└─Hominini (tribe)
└─┬?─Sahelanthropus X (possible common ancestor)
├─Panina (subtribe)
│ └─┬─Pan troglodytes (chimpanzee)
│   └─Pan paniscus (bonobos)
└─Hominina (subtribe)
├─Orrorin tugenensis
├─Ardipithecus X
└─┬─Australopithecus afarensis X
│ └?─Paranthropus aethiopicus (if descended from A afarensis) X
├─Australopithecus garhi X
└─┬─Australopithecus africanus X
└─┬─Paranthropus X
│ ├?─Paranthropus aethiopicus X (alternate location)
│ └─┬─Paranthropus robustus X
│   └─Paranthropus boisei X
└─┬─Kenyanthropus X
└─Homo
├─Homo habilis X
╘═╤═Homo erectus X
│ └─Homo floresiensis X
╘═╤═Homo heidelbergensis X
└─┬─Homo neanderthalensis X
└─Homo sapiens

Enjoy

I don't think ToL is a good source for the latest classifications. I can't comment on most of the tree; but vertebrate phylogeny is a bit of a hobby; and here at least ToL seemed to stop updating well over a decade ago. Their vertebrate trees represent what was the conservative view in the 1990s. In 2017 that means they're flat out wrong.While there are lots of issues that are still controversial (where do turtles go, for example); there are many things long universally accepted that ToL contradicts, and I very much wish someone was still updating it, because at the moment it's just misleading. Open Tree of Life is much more up-to-date; but the problem with this is that it does incorporate a lot of still controversial ideas, and unlike ToLWeb it doesn't tell you when this is the case, nor present alternative hypotheses.

The completist in me is concerned that your tree gives the impression baboons are the only Old World monkey. I tried to edit it but for some reason cannot get the branches to line up properly.Still, if people thought palaeos diagrams are hard to read - see what happens when I draw it!