Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

How reliable are human phylogenetic hypotheses?

M Collard1, B Wood

  • 1Department of Anthropology, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, United Kingdom. m.collard@ucl.ac.uk

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
|April 26, 2000
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Larger-scale feasibility trial of the families moving forward (FMF) connect mobile health intervention for caregivers raising children with fetal alcohol spectrum disorders.

Digital health·2024
Same author

Remarks on Making Gold Plate and Solder.

The Dental register·2021
Same author

New Fusible Alloys.

The Dental register·2021
Same author

Gutta Percha for Separating and Regulating Teeth.

The Dental register·2021
Same author

Alloys for Die Metal, Etc.

The Dental register·2021
Same author

Metals and Alloys.

The Dental register·2021

Phylogenetic hypotheses based on primate craniodental evidence are unreliable. New methods are needed for human evolution studies, as current approaches may not yield accurate hominin phylogeny.

Area of Science:

  • Paleoanthropology
  • Primate Phylogenetics
  • Evolutionary Biology

Background:

  • Cladistic analysis of cranial and dental evidence is a common method for inferring evolutionary relationships in humans and fossil relatives.
  • The reliability of phylogenies derived from craniodental data has not been externally validated.
  • Molecular phylogenies offer a robust, independent dataset for validating other phylogenetic methods.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To externally validate the reliability of craniodental-based phylogenetic hypotheses in higher primates.
  • To assess the congruence between phylogenies derived from craniodental data and molecular data in hominoids and papionins.
  • To determine the implications of these findings for the accuracy of existing human evolution phylogenetic hypotheses.

Main Methods:

Related Experiment Videos

  • Applied cladistic analysis methods to craniodental evidence from extant hominoids and papionins.
  • Utilized established molecular phylogenies for hominoids and papionins as a benchmark for comparison.
  • Compared phylogenetic hypotheses generated from craniodental data against molecular phylogenies.

Main Results:

  • Phylogenetic hypotheses derived from craniodental data were found to be incompatible with molecular phylogenies in both hominoids and papionins.
  • The molecular phylogenies demonstrated robustness and reliability.
  • Significant discrepancies were observed between the two data types, questioning the accuracy of craniodental-based phylogenies.

Conclusions:

  • Phylogenetic hypotheses generated solely from higher primate craniodental evidence should be viewed with caution due to low reliability.
  • Existing phylogenetic hypotheses concerning human evolution, which heavily rely on craniodental data, are likely unreliable.
  • Novel methodologies are necessary to accurately reconstruct hominin phylogeny and advance our understanding of human evolution.