How reliable are human phylogenetic hypotheses?
Cladistic analysis of cranial and dental evidence has been widely used to generate phylogenetic hypotheses about humans and their fossil relatives. However, the reliability of these hypotheses has never been subjected to external validation. To rectify this, we applied identical methods to equivalent evidence from two groups of extant higher primates for whom reliable molecular phylogenies are available, the hominoids and papionins. We found that the phylogenetic hypotheses based on the craniodental data were incompatible with the molecular phylogenies for the groups. Given the robustness of the molecular phylogenies, these results indicate that little confidence can be placed in phylogenies generated solely from higher primate craniodental evidence. The corollary of this is that existing phylogenetic hypotheses about human evolution are unlikely to be reliable. Accordingly, new approaches are required to address the problem of hominin phylogeny.
Collard
M
M
Department of Anthropology, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, United Kingdom. m.collard@ucl.ac.uk
Wood
B
B
D000818:Animals; D005580:Fossils; D006071:Gorilla gorilla / Q000033:anatomy & histology / Q000145:classification; D015186:Hominidae / Q000033:anatomy & histology* / Q000145:classification*; D006801:Humans; D006922:Hylobates / Q000033:anatomy & histology / Q000145:classification; D010161:Paleodontology / Q000379:methods*; D010163:Paleontology / Q000379:methods*; D010802:Phylogeny; D011148:Pongo pygmaeus / Q000033:anatomy & histology / Q000145:classification; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012886:Skull / Q000033:anatomy & histology