Talk:Ape

Tree?

Hominoidea	Hominidae   Homininae   Hominini   Homo  Pan  Gorillini   Gorilla  Ponginae   Pongo  Hylobatidae  Hylobates  Hoolock  Nomascus  Symphalangus

Template:Userboxbottom Is this a usefull tree? Kim van der Linde 12:40, 11 September 2007 (CDT)

Very much so - could you look at hominin, Hominid and Primate for suggestions on placing this appropriatly? I've tried to cover the debate adequatly but this is a big job!

Many thanks again!

Lee

I think the discussion would be best suited in this article, and not in the others (hominin, Hominid). It is not an issue to refer to this article from those. I do not think we have to cover each detail of the debate, but the general lines. It seems that you have a slightly different tree in mind with Pan and Gorilla in a single clade, but Goodman et al seems to favor the one that I included. Is goodman generally accepted?

M. Goodman, D. A. Tagle, D. H. Fitch, W. Bailey, J. Czelusniak, B. F. Koop, P. Benson, J. L. Slightom (1990). "Primate evolution at the DNA level and a classification of hominoids". Journal of Molecular Evolution 30: 260–266.

Kim van der Linde 13:32, 11 September 2007 (CDT)

Its a bit old - on my web page [[1]] under "essays" I review the whole hominin - hominid thing - its where I developed the article from. Goodman was really pre-DNA in some respects and thus maybe you are right and an encyclopedic article should reflect both the earlier and maybe "conventional" opinions and the latest research. Your opinion? P.S. Keep going!

Lee R. Berger 13:53, 11 September 2007 (CDT)

I think the criterion should be what is generally accpeted within the field of experts. When your article is really thought provoking, but not followed, we would only introduce confusion among our readers who use a term and see it used differently everywhere else. So, that would be the crucial question to ask. Kim van der Linde 14:10, 11 September 2007 (CDT)