Darwinius masillae is a Haplorhine — Reply to Williams et al. (2010)

The Anthropoid‐Like Face of Siamopithecus: Cherry Picking Trees, Phylogenetic Corroboration, and the Adapiform–Anthropoid Hypothesis

“…The results of Zollikofer et al (2009) joined with those recently presented by Franzen et al (2009), Williams et al (2010, and Gingerich et al (2010) have served to rekindle the debate over the adapiform-anthropoid hypothesis. Hopefully, this renewed interest will also stimulate efforts to test specific morphological details behind tree topology (i.e., the putative homologies that support nodes) by independent means rather than by reiteration of the same or similar data matrices.…”

“…Opinions differ on the relationships of Siamopithecus (Zollikofer et al enumerate and reference these views) which can be summarized as: (1) Siamopithecus is an anthropoid and a member of a monophyletic group that includes two other Eocene Asian genera, Amphipithecus and Pondaungia (the family-level nomenclature for this taxon has been a source of some confusion-Amphipithecidae Godinot, 1994 has priority; see Holroyd et al, 2002), plus a third that has been described since then (Beard et al, 2009); or (2) Siamopithecus and its allies are adapiform strepsirhines and thus are only tangentially related to anthropoids as euprimates. Either way, Siamopithecus essentially represents yet another chapter in a decade long debate that revolves around the question of where, if anywhere, do adapiforms fit in the history of anthropoid phylogeny (e.g., Gregory, 1922;Le Gros Clark, 1959;Szalay and Delson, 1979;Gingerich, 1980a,b;Rosenberger and Szalay, 1980;Rosenberger et al, 1985;Kay and Williams, 1994;Fleagle, 1999;Ciochon et al, 2001;Ciochon and Gunnell, 2002;Gebo, 2002;Ross and Kay, 2004;Williams et al, 2010;Gingerich et al, 2010)? Zollikofer et al (2009) offer new evidence that, in their view, supports inclusion of Siamopithecus within anthropoids.…”

The labyrinthine morphology of Pronycticebus gaudryi (Primates, Adapiformes)

“…This view was criticized by Williams et al (2010), in a review of the anatomical features differentiating haplorhine and strepsirrhine primates. Williams et al (2010) argued that Darwinius is certainly not a haplorhine, and gave further support to the hypothesis that Adapiformes are basal strepsirrhines (but see Gingerich et al 2010).…”

Reply to comment on “Primates in the Eocene” by Gilbert and Maiolino (2015)

“…I analysed the 30-character data matrix in Section 16 of the supplementary documentation of phylogenetic analyses provided by Maiolino et al (2012). This represents the original character list and scoring of Gingerich et al (2010) as modified by Maiolino et al (2012), who rescored some characters and added the taxa Notharctus and Catopithecus. In addition, as stated in Gingerich (2012), I corrected Maiolino et al's character 9 score for Notharctus to '1,' representing its largely carotid blood supply to the brain (Gingerich 2012).…”

“…In addition, as stated in Gingerich (2012), I corrected Maiolino et al's character 9 score for Notharctus to '1,' representing its largely carotid blood supply to the brain (Gingerich 2012). Gingerich et al (2010) compiled the 30-character data set as a list of characteristics cited by authors, principally Hill (1953Hill ( , 1955 and Fleagle (1999), to distinguish Strepsirrhini and Haplorhini. Guiding principles included (1) representation-representation of the full range of characteristics distinguishing Strepsirrhini and Haplorhini as high-level taxa; (2) simplicity-inclusion of a trait no more than once if possible; and (3) independence-choice of characteristics that are developmentally, functionally, and evolutionarily as independent of each other as possible.…”