Table 4. Putative primate baramins, based on a synthesis of this and previously published studies. do we fail here to clearly identify holobaramins among the fossil apes? Perhaps the most obvious answer might be that the character matrices that are compiled by evolutionists are biased in some fashion and that data compiled by evolutionists are unreliable. Given our previous results with fossil hominins, which reveal a very clear set of clusters repeatedly with multiple character sets, we do not find this a very compelling response. Certainly evolutionary bias plays a role in these character matrices, but there seems to be no a priori reason why that bias would prevent clear and consistent clustering. A more likely possibility would consider the taxon sample. Clustering works best when each cluster contains numerous taxa. If the taxon sample here contains too many holobaramins with too few taxa from each, then the clustering algorithms are looking for patterns of clustering between clusters, rather than clustering within a cluster. For example, the Gilbert et al. (2020) taxon sample includes platyrhines as outgroups, representatives of at least six other families, along with the “stem” taxa Catopithecus and Aegyptopithecus. Thus, at least nine different groups are represented by 41 taxa, for an average of 4.6 taxa per group. If those taxa are not tightly clustered together and distinct from other clusters, they are unlikely to be discovered by either distance correlation or traditional cluster analysis in a matrix such as Gilbert et al.’s. The same taxonomic concerns apply to Rasmussen et al.’s (2019) matrix, which contains taxa from at least nine different groups with only 36 taxa. Pugh’s (2022) character matrix suggests that taxon sampling may not explain the whole problem. The thirty taxa from Pugh’s matrix used here are more taxonomically restricted than either Rasmussen et al. or Gilbert et al. Pugh included two platyrhines for outgroups along with “stem” catarrhines Aegyptopithecus and Dendropithecus and two hylobatids, but the majority of taxa were either hominids (18 taxa) or proconsulids (5 taxa). There are again at least six different groups present, but with the majority of taxa in only two groups, Incertae Sedis Family Plesiadapidae (hb) (Wood 2021) Family Picrodontidae (hb) (Wood 2021) Suborder Strepsirrhini Family Lemuridae (hb) (Wood 2021) Family Lepilemuridae (hb) (Wood 2021) Family Galagonidae (hb) (Wood 2008) Suborder Haplorhini Infraorder Tarsiiformes Family Carpolestidae (hb?) (Wood 2021) Family Omomyidae (hb?) (Wood 2021) Infraorder Simiiformes Parvorder Platyrrhini Family Cebidae (hb?) (Wood 2021) Parvorder Catarrhini Family Pliopithecidae (mb?) - Includes Catopithecus, Epipliopithecus, Laccopithecus, and Lomorupithecus; based on consistent clustering in this study. Family Cercopithecidae (mb?) (Hartwig-Scherer 1993) - May include Victoriapithecus based on consistent clustering with Presbytis in this study. Family Hylobatidae (mb) (Hartwig-Scherer 1998; this study) Family Hominidae Genus Pan (mb) - based on interspecific hybridization. Genus Gorilla (mb) - based on interspecific hybridization. Unnamed hominid cluster 1 (mb?) - Hispanopithecus, Lufengpithecus, Sivapithecus, Kenyapithecus, Ouranopithecus, Pierolapithecus, and Pongo; based on consistent clustering in this study. Pongo is also a monobaramin based on interspecific hybridization. Genus Paranthropus (hb) (Wood 2010) - Supported by clustering in this study. Genus Homo + Au. sediba (hb) (Sinclair and Wood 2021) - Humans. BRUMMEL AND WOOD Preliminary Evaluation of Ape Baramins 2023 ICC 161
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=