Classification and phylogeny in human evolution

Ian Tattersall

Resumen


The competing claims and requirements of classification (epistemological) and phylogeny (ontological) are briefly reviewed. Classification is a product of systematists, while phylogeny is a product of nature. For paleontologists the principal source of information about the evolutionary histories of groups of organisms is morphology, yet speciation and morphological shift are far from synonymous. This simple fact complicates everything from basic species recognition to phylogeny reconstructions involving higher taxa. It is concluded that in the interests of stability, simplicity, and effectiveness of communication, classifications should be consistent with what is known or can reasonably be inferred about phylogeny, but need not be exact transliterations of it. In the case of human beings and their close relatives it is clear that the evolutionary story has not been a simple linear process, but has instead involved extensive experimentation, with the production of numerous terminal species. These species must be accounted for in any classification that claims consistency with the fossil record.

 

Key words: Classification, phylogeny, monophyly, diversity, species, evolution, hominidae.


Texto completo:

PDF

Referencias


Delson, E., N. Eldredge and I. Tattersall (1977), “Reconstruction of hominid phylogeny: a testable framework based on a cladistic analysis,” J. Hum. Evol. 6: 263-278.

Eldredge, N. and I. Tattersall (1975), “Evolutionary models, phylogenetic reconstruction, and another look at hominid phylogeny,” in Szalay, F. S. (ed.), Approaches to Primate Paleobiology. Basel: S. Karger, pp. 218-243.

Farris, J. S. (1976), “Phylogenetic classification of fossils with recent species,” Syst. Zool. 25: 271-282.

Patterson, C. and D. E. Rosen (1977), “Review of ichthyodectiform and other Mesozoic teleost fishes and the theory and practice of classifying fossils,” Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist. 158: 81-172.

Ghiselin, M. T. (1974), “A radical solution to the species problem,” Syst. Zool. 23: 536-544.

Schwartz, J. H., I. Tattersall and N. Eldredge (1978), “Phylogeny and classification of the primates revisited,” Yrbk. Phys. Anthropol. 21: 95-133.

Tattersall, I. (1986), “Species recognition in human paleontology,” Jour. Hum. Evol. 15: 165-175.

Tattersall, I. (1992), “Species concepts and species identification in human evolution,” Jour. Hum. Evol. 22: 341-349.

Tattersall, I. (1994), “How does evolution work?” Evolutionary Anthropology 3 (1): 2-3.

Tattersall, I. (1998), Becoming Human: Evolution and Human Uniqueness. New York: Harcourt Brace.

Tattersall, I. (2000), “Once we were not alone,” Scientific American 282 (1): 56-62.

Tattersall, I. and N. Eldredge (1977), “Fact, theory and fantasy in human paleontology,” Amer. Scientist 65 (2): 204-211.

Wolpoff, M. H., A. G. Thorne, J. Jelinek and Y. Zhang (1994), “The case for sinking Homo erectus: 100 years of Pithecanthropus is enough!” Courier ForschInst Senckenberg 171: 341-361.

Wood, B. and M. Collard (1999), “The human genus,” Science 284: 65-69.


Enlaces refback

  • No hay ningún enlace refback.


Revista semestral editada por el Centro de Estudios Filosóficos, Políticos
y Sociales Vicente Lombardo Toledano de la Secretaría de Educación Pública,
la Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana-Iztapalapa y Edicions UIB de la Universitat de les Illes Balears.

Lombardo Toledano 51, Col. Ex-Hda. Guadalupe Chimalistac,
Del. Alvaro Obregón, C.P. 01050, México, D.F.
Tels. (5255) 5661-4679 y 5661-4987
Fax: (5255) 5661-1787