干旱区生态环境知识资源中心

Early hominid masticatory characters are widely considered to be more prone to homoplasy than characters from other regions of the early hominid skull arid, therefore less reliable for phylogenetic reconstruction. This hypothesis has important implications for current reconstructions of early hominid phylogeny, but it has never been tested. In this paper we evaluate the likely veracity of the hypothesis using craniometric data from extant primate groups for which reliable consensus molecular phylogenies are available.

Datasets representing the extant large-bodied hominoid genera and the extant papionin genera were compiled from standard measurements. The data were adjusted to minimise the confounding effects of body size, and then converted into discrete character states using divergence coding. Each dataset was divided into four regional character groups: (1) palate and upper dentition, (2) mandible and lower dentition, (3) face and (4) cranial vault and base. Thereafter, the regional character groups were analysed using cladistic methods and the resulting phylogenetic hypotheses judged against the consensus molecular phylogenies for the hominoids and papionins.

The analyses indicated that the regions dominated by masticatory characters-the palate and upper dentition, and the mandible and lower dentition-are no less reliable for phylogenetic reconstruction than the other regions of the skull. The four regions were equally affected by homoplasy and were, therefore, equally unreliable for phylogenetic reconstruction. This finding challenges the recent suggestion that Paranthropus is polyphyletic, which is based on the assumption that masticatory characters are especially prone to homoplasy. Our finding also suggests that, contrary to current practice, there is no a priori reason to de-emphasise the phylogenetic significance of the masticatory similarities between Homo rudolfensis and the australopiths. The corollary of this is that H. rudolfensis is unlikely to be a member of the Homo clade and should therefore be allocated to another genus. (C) 2001 Academic Press.