Figure 13. Distance correlation results using the Rasmussen et al. (2019) characters and the Hominoidea taxon subset. Correlations and distance metrics are shown in the diagram. Filled squares indicate significant, positive distance correlation. Open circles indicate significant, negative correlation. we might expect to see more clarity in the clustering, which we do not. At best, the full Pugh matrix distinguishes only the outgroup (platyrhines, hylobatids, Dendropithecus, Aegyptopithecus, and sometimes Oreopithecus) from the ingroup. Even that is poorly supported by the medoid partitioning and fuzzy analysis. Whatever the reason, the combinations of taxa and characters in this present work have not revealed a consistent and clear set of clusters that might plausibly be assigned to holobaramins. Combining this work with previous baraminological analyses, we propose to minimally recognize the primate baramins shown in Table 4. From previous work, proposed holobaramins include the Paleocene and Eocene Plesiadapidae (Wood 2021), the Paleocene Picrodontidae (Wood 2021), lemurs of families Lemuridae and Lepilemuridae (Wood 2021), the galagos of family Galagonidae (Wood 2008), Eocene tarsiiforms Carpolestidae and Omomyidae (Wood 2021), and platyrrhine monkeys of family Cebidae (Wood 2021). Based on the present results, we suggest recognizing an unnamed hominid cluster consisting of Hispanopithecus, Lufengpithecus, Sivapithecus, Kenyapithecus, Ouranopithecus, and Pierolapithecus as a putative monobaramin. We also suggest that the pliopithecids Catopithecus, Epipliopithecus, Laccopithecus, and Lomorupithecus form a possible monobaramin. The monobaraminic status of Hylobatidae is here confirmed by a more thorough review of interspecific hybrids than in Hartwig-Scherer’s (1998) previous treatment. Genus Paranthropus is also moderately confirmed as a holobaramin. Based on hybridization first noted by Hartwig-Scherer (1998), genus Pan is a monobaramin. More recent hybridization reports indicate the genera Gorilla and Pongo are also monobaramins. In the case of the Cercopithecidae, Hartwig-Scherer (1993) only included subfamily Cercopithecinae (baboons and macaques) in her basic type, but here we note consistent clustering of the fossil cercopithecoid Victoriapithecus with the surilis of genus Presbytis. Presbytis is placed in the other cercopithecid subfamily Colobinae. Conservatively, this would support the existence of a single monobaramin containing only Presbytis and Victoriapithecus. However, as a cercopithecoid, Victoriapithecus is placed in neither of the modern subfamilies but shares traits with both. We therefore cautiously propose that at least family Cercopithecidae, and possibly superfamily Cercopithecoidea, represents a single monobaramin. This proposal will of course require additional testing. Our present study may seem to be a small addition to primate baraminology, but considering this is the first deliberate examination of the larger world of fossil hominoid baramins, this is an important step forward. At the very least, our results urge caution on casual references to “the ape kind” as distinct from humans. Ongoing work continues to support well-defined human and Paranthropus holobaramins, but the baraminic status of the remaining apes remains BRUMMEL AND WOOD Preliminary Evaluation of Ape Baramins 2023 ICC 163
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=