Diagnosis and Differentiation of the Order Primates
Diagnosis and Differentiation of the Order Primates
复制标题
灵长目动物的诊断与鉴别
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
1987
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
M. Dagosto
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
F. Szalay;A. Rosenberger;M. Dagosto
我们将我们的方法用于灵长目动物及其各种超种分类群的系统发育诊断，并与定义程序进行了比较。根据化石记录中得到的确凿的信息，该目可以明确地诊断出来，我们将其分为半目、副目和真灵长目。我们假设在灵长类动物的第一个代表物种，真灵长类、链鼻目动物、单鼻目动物和人类总科中固定的派生特征的列表被提出。根据现有证据的性质，我们对该目的分类包括全系群和副系群。我们详细讨论了在古基因灵长类动物中存在的有问题的基骨的证据，并为解决以前有争议的解释提供了新的证据。我们更新和扩大了我们对化石和现存灵长类动物的化石后分析的重视，以表明了解它们的进化形态以及随后它们在理解分类群系统发育方面的作用的重要性。我们反对被广泛提倡的“先有系统发育，后有系统发生，再有情景第三”的方法，该方法坚持生物学基础的特征分析，即功能适应性分析和古生物学，与系谱假说无关。与传统的操作规则不同，我们主张并使用字符的先验权重。我们讨论了Earliest真灵长类、Adapidae和Oomyidae之间各种关系的证据，并表明前者与活着的链鼻目动物联系在一起，后者与活着的Haplorhini联系在一起，并不依赖于化石中存在软解剖特征的假设。相反，正是化石类群的衍生硬解剖学特征与活着的类群共享，才可能使它们拥有链状或单角形的“软”属性。我们讨论了在尝试对灵长类动物进行分类时使用等级概念的相对优点(及其被广泛认可的多系含义)，并坚持认为没有证据表明存在“古老的灵长类动物”、原猴或类人型等级。文献中所有与此有关的特征都是从半目拟人形目、半目真灵长类或半亚博人总科的最初代表那里继承而来的。因此，我们发现阶梯排列既不具有描述性，也不具有说教价值，其目标可以通过系统发育(而不是分支)分类来更好地服务。
We contrast our approach to a phylogenetic diagnosis of the order Primates, and its various supraspecific taxa, with definitional proce- dures. The order, which we divide into the semiorders Paromomyiformes and Euprimates, is clearly diagnosable on the basis of well-corroborated informa- tion from the fossil record. Lists of derived features which we hypothesize to have been fixed in the first representative species of the Primates, Eupri- mates, Strepsirhini, Haplorhini, and Anthropoidea, are presented. Our clas- sification of the order includes both holophyletic and paraphyletic groups, depending on the nature of the available evidence. We discuss in detail the problematic evidence of the basicranium in Paleo- gene primates and present new evidence for the resolution of previously controversial interpretations. We renew and expand our emphasis on postcra- nial analysis of fossil and living primates to show the importance of under- standing their evolutionary morphology and subsequent to this their use for understanding taxon phylogeny. We reject the much advocated %ladograms first, phylogeny next, and scenario third" approach which maintains that biologically founded character analysis, i.e., functional-adaptive analysis and paleontology, is irrelevant to genealogy hypotheses. Unlike the cladistic rules of operations demand, we advocate and use a priori weighting of characters. We discuss the evidence for the various proposed relationships of the earli- est euprimates, the Adapidae and Omomyidae, and show that linking the former with living Strepsirhini and the latter with living Haplorhini does not depend on the assumption of the presence of soft-anatomical characters in the fossils. On the contrary, it is the sharing of derived hard anatomical features of the fossil taxa with the living groups which makes their possession of either strepsirhine or haplorhine "soft" attributes probable. We discuss the relative merits of the use of the grade concept (with its widely recognized implication of polyphyly) in attempts to group primates and maintain that there exists no evidence for either an "archaic primate" or a prosimian or an anthropoid grade. All the characters in the literature attributed to these are inherited from the first representatives of either the semiorder Paromomyiformes or the semiorder Euprimates or the semisubor- der Anthropoidea. Consequently, we find neither descriptive nor didactic merit in gradal arrangements, the goals of which can be much better served by a phylogenetic (not cladistic) classification.