recognizing two ape kinds. Subsequent work with Cserhati was cautiously interpreted as support for the Pongidae kind (Lightner and Cserhati 2019). Rupe and Sanford (2017) provide a tentative outline of ape diversity in four different kinds: (1) gorilla, Sahelanthropus, and some Au. afarensis remains, (2) chimpanzees, bonobos, some Au. afarensis remains, Ardipithecus and Au. africanus, (3) orangutans, and (4) Paranthropus. Morphological studies using statistical baraminology on fossil hominins have revealed conflicting results regarding the identity of the ape kinds. Initially, Wood (2010) inferred three possible kinds, consisting of (1) genus Paranthropus, (2) Australopithecus africanus, and (3) a group of Pan, Gorilla, Au. afarensis, and Au. garhi. Further work supported the separation of Paranthropus from other hominoids (Wood 2016, 2017), but the membership of the other groups was less certain. The 2016 study supported placing Au. africanus in the same group as chimpanzees and gorillas, but the 2017 study supported separating Au. africanus from Au. afarensis and both australopiths from chimpanzee and gorilla. The most recent work revealed considerable uncertainty about the placement of Au. africanus and some question about the inclusion of Australopithecus, chimpanzees, and gorillas in the same kind (Sinclair and Wood 2021). Orangutans and other hominoids have rarely been considered in previous statistical baraminology analyses. Taken altogether then, we find a persistent lack of agreement on the identity of the hominoid baramin or baramins among creationists (Table 2). Only two considerations appear to be common to multiple creationist assessments: chimpanzees and gorillas belong together in a single created kind, and Wood (2010, 2016, 2017) and Rupe and Sanford (2017) agree that Paranthropus is separate from all other hominins. The placement of Australopithecus species shows littlew consistency, and the numerous fossils of nonhominin hominoids are rarely considered. Here, we present a more comprehensive treatment of ape baraminology than has been previously conducted. We begin with a review of interspecific hybridization and its relevance to the living apes, and we then use modern clustering methods to evaluate four character matrices that include a wide array of fossil hominoids. This work is not merely a corrective to casual creationist references to the “ape kind,” but rather a serious investigation into the animal kinds most closely allied with humanity. Having a comprehensive and detailed account of the full suite of hominoid baramins will allow us to be much more precise and confident in the identification of the human holobaramin. METHODS Hybridization and molecular data. Hybridization records were compiled from the professional literature using Google Scholar and previous published compilations (Gray 1954; Chiarelli 1973; Hartwig-Scherer 1998). To supplement the hybridization information, we selected mitochondrial genome sequences to tabulate pairwise single nucleotide differences. The sequences were obtained from GenBank and aligned by CLUSTALW2 for Linux. Nine hylobatid mitochondrial genomes were obtained from RefSeq: Nomascus leucogenys (NC_021957), N. gabriellae (NC_018753), N. siki (NC_014051), Symphalangus syndactylus (NC_014047), Hoolock leuconedys (NC_033882), Ho. hoolock (NC_033885), Hylobates lar (NC_002082), Hy. pileatus (NC_014045), and Hy. agilis (NC_014042). Two additional sequences were taken from the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) nucleotide database: No. concolor (HQ622808) and Hy. moloch (CM020645). The alignment was loaded into MEGA 11 for tabulation of single nucleotide differences. Character matrices. To further elucidate ape baramins, we considered an array of published character sets for matrices that presented alternative character and taxon samples of the hominoids while avoiding redundancy. Matrices by Begun et al. (1997), Cameron (1997), Rae (1999), Young and MacLatchy (2004), Rossie and MacLatchy (2006), Alba et al. (2015), and Nengo et al. (2017) were all superseded by the more recent matrices published by Gilbert et al. (2020) or Pugh (2022). We also considered the older matrix published by Shoshani et al. (1996), which we rejected for its taxon sample across the entire order Primates with only one or two species per family. The sparse taxon sampling renders it unsuitable for cluster analysis looking to distinguish one family from another. We also considered a matrix published by Benoit and Thackeray (2017), Table 2. Creationist assessment of great ape kinds illustrates a lack of consensus. Putative created kinds designated by each author are boxed. ** Rupe and Sanford (2017) place some Au. afarensis fossils in the gorilla kind. Hartwig-Scherer 1998 Wood 2010 Lightner and Cserhati 2019 Rupe and Sanford 2017 Pongo pygmaeus Pongo pygmaeus Pongo pygmaeus Pongo pygmaeus Pongo abelii Pongo abelii Pongo abelii Pongo abelii Gorilla Gorilla Gorilla Gorilla Pan paniscus Pan paniscus Pan paniscus Pan paniscus Pan troglodytes Pan troglodytes Pan troglodytes Pan troglodytes Australopithecus Australopithecus Australopithecus Australopithecus** Paranthropus Paranthropus Paranthropus Paranthropus BRUMMEL AND WOOD Preliminary Evaluation of Ape Baramins 2023 ICC 147
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=