How reliable are human phylogenetic hypotheses?
AUTOR(ES)
Collard, Mark
FONTE
The National Academy of Sciences
RESUMO
Cladistic analysis of cranial and dental evidence has been widely used to generate phylogenetic hypotheses about humans and their fossil relatives. However, the reliability of these hypotheses has never been subjected to external validation. To rectify this, we applied identical methods to equivalent evidence from two groups of extant higher primates for whom reliable molecular phylogenies are available, the hominoids and papionins. We found that the phylogenetic hypotheses based on the craniodental data were incompatible with the molecular phylogenies for the groups. Given the robustness of the molecular phylogenies, these results indicate that little confidence can be placed in phylogenies generated solely from higher primate craniodental evidence. The corollary of this is that existing phylogenetic hypotheses about human evolution are unlikely to be reliable. Accordingly, new approaches are required to address the problem of hominin phylogeny.
ACESSO AO ARTIGO
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=18347Documentos Relacionados
- Genomic rearrangements in trypanosomatids: an alternative to the "one gene" evolutionary hypotheses?
- Fluctuation Tests: How Reliable Are the Estimates of Mutation Rates?
- Smoking during pregnancy: how reliable are maternal self reports in New Zealand?
- Modeling body size evolution in Felidae under alternative phylogenetic hypotheses
- Conflicting Reports of Imprinting Status of Human GRB10 in Developing Brain: How Reliable Are Somatic Cell Hybrids for Predicting Allelic Origin of Expression?
