but mixes members of Homo and Australopithecus in another cluster. The hard partition from the two-cluster fuzzy analysis places all members of Homo, Au. sediba, and Par. robustus in a single cluster. Three-cluster fuzzy analysis places Au. africanus and H. floresiensis in the Paranthopus cluster with a notably lower average silhouette width of 0.33. As with the simple matching distances, visual inspection of the three-dimensional MDS results reveals no obvious clustering (Figure 5). For the LC subset of characters, distance correlation using simple matching distances partitioned the taxa into three clusters (Figure 6). Once again, H. floresiensis shared no significant, positive correlation with any other taxa. With additional instances of significant, positive correlation, the Paranthropus species are more decisively included in the cluster with Homo sapiens, Au. sediba, and the remaining Homo taxa, along with Au. africanus. The remaining non-Homo taxa form the third cluster. Despite the better support afforded by additional instances of significant, positive distance correlation, the resultant clustering has a poor average silhouette width of 0.26. Two-cluster partitions from medoid partitioning and fuzzy analysis both place Paranthropus taxa in the same cluster with Homo sapiens, and Homo floresiensis is placed in the other cluster by both methods. Despite the difference, both two-cluster partitions have average silhouette widths of at least 0.5. Three-cluster medoid partitioning has a cluster consisting of all three Paranthropus taxa with Au. afarensis and Au. africanus, and H. floresiensis is placed in a cluster with Ardipithecus, chimpanzee, and gorilla. Three-cluster fuzzy analysis resembles the three-cluster medoid partition, except H. floresiensis and Au. sediba are placed in the Paranthropus cluster. Again, visual inspection of the three-dimensional MDS reveals no obvious clustering (Figure 7). Clustering (Figure 8) and three-dimensional MDS (Figure 9) using Jaccard distances for the LC characters were nearly identical to the results from the simple matching distances. The major difference is seen in the three-cluster medoid partition, where using Jaccard distances results in moving gorilla into the Paranthropus cluster. For the EAO subset of characters, distance correlation using simple matching distances reveals two clusters (Figure 10). Again we find Paranthropus, Homo, and Au. sediba combined in a single cluster with H. floresiensis placed in a cluster with gorilla and chimpanzee. Two-cluster medoid partitioning closely resembles these clusters but places Au. africanus and Au. garhi in the cluster with Homo sapiens. The hard partition from two-cluster fuzzy analysis places Par. boisei and Par. robustus in the cluster with Homo sapiens and Par. aethiopicus in the cluster with gorilla and chimpanzee. Average silhouette widths do not single out any of the two-cluster arrangements as obviSO1 n = 104 LC1 n = 33 EAO2 n = 95 FA2 n = 22 PO2 n = 54 HN1 n = 30 African H. erectus 81 / 98 NA 23 / 91 7 / 22 11 / 53 14 / 28 Asian H. erectus 65 / 79 NA 25 / 75 6 / 18 10 / 40 19 / 30 Neandertal 60 / 69 NA 15 / 66 5 / 17 4 / 35 NA H. heidelbergensis 63 / 71 33 / 33 13 / 67 3 / 17 3 / 37 15 / 30 H. habilis 68 / 98 30 / 33 27 / 90 7 / 21 11 / 54 13 / 23 H. rudolfensis 53 / 76 25 / 29 19 / 70 7 / 18 15 / 49 9 / 17 H. floresiensis 11 / 32 3 / 8 18 / 30 11 / 13 8 / 25 5 / 9 H. naledi 44 / 56 26 / 30 14 / 53 3 / 14 10 / 34 6 / 11 Georgian H. erectus 26 / 43 16 / 16 16 / 41 5 / 14 13 / 32 8 / 22 H. antecessor 4 / 8 NA 4 / 8 2 / 4 2 / 6 7 / 13 Au. afarensis 24 / 79 11 / 31 45 / 76 NA 28 / 51 7 / 19 Au. africanus 39 / 98 18 / 33 49 / 90 NA 29 / 54 12 / 23 Au. anamensis 8 / 36 4 / 16 16 / 31 6 / 7 13 / 26 1 / 5 Au. garhi 6 / 21 2 / 7 8 / 19 3 / 4 5 / 19 1 / 3 Au. sediba 29 / 49 17 / 23 17 / 46 7 / 16 13 / 41 6 / 10 Par. boisei 44 / 97 18 / 33 36 / 90 13 / 22 NA 11 / 18 Par. aethiopicus 22 / 70 11 / 22 29 / 64 11 / 15 NA 3 / 12 Par. robustus 44 / 83 19 / 30 18 / 76 9 / 21 NA 8 / 13 Kenyanthropus 5 / 15 1 / 4 6 / 14 2 / 3 5 / 15 1 / 3 Sahelanthropus 6 / 28 2 / 10 13 / 21 3 / 3 10 / 21 1 / 5 Ardipithecus 7 / 39 2 / 17 22 / 33 7 / 8 4 / 23 1 / 3 1For each taxon, the recorded fraction is the number of character states that match that of the human taxa divided by the number of character states known for that taxon. Distances are calculated as one minus the fraction shown. 2For each taxon, the recorded fraction is the number of character states that match that of the ape taxa divided by the number of character states known for that taxon. Distances are calculated as one minus the fraction shown. Table 4. Character distributions for all subsets. WOOD Essentialism and Human Kind 2023 ICC 94
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=