Human Evolution Cladogram - Need Input

[megabass22]

(I am not sure if i am posting this right, if not, please move it to the correct location)

Recently (it was completed yesterday actually) i made a cladogram of human evolution, simply because of the fact that i hadn´t seen one that incorporated all known species today, things is though, i am not sure on some parts of it, so if anyone spots an inaccuracy. please tell me .

Anyways, here´s the finished cladogram:

And here are some notes i made while making it: "Pan prior" is a unscientific term based on the notion that the common ancestor of humans, chimpanzees and bonobos was very chimp-like, however, today, it seems more likely that this common ancestor was more similar to Sahelanthropus. The time of this "Pan prior" is also very uncertain due to the fact that we haven´t found any fossils or traces of it, current estimates place the "split" at anything from 5 million years ago to 15 million years ago, i am going for a conservative estimate of 8 million years ago for my cladogram.

The relationship of the early hominins is uncertain and may change considerably once we uncover more remains.
It is obvious that Paranthropus is very similar to Australopithecus (some place it in the same genus), so i would confidently say that Paranthropus evolved from Australopithecus, and since A.africanus was the only live species of Australopithecus at that time, it seems to be the most logical choice.
A debate of which species of Australopithecus gave rise the Homo habilis has raged for long, in my cladogram i picked A.garhi since it is the only known species of Australopithecus known to have made stone tools, something Homo habilis also did.
Homo floresiensis is shown as a very primitive species in my cladogram based on a fairly recent cladistic analysis.
A part i am very uncertain on is the evolutionary tree of the various subspecies of Homo erectus, and in my cladogram i based it on time and location rather than fossils, due to not much information being accessible about the characteristics of these subspecies.
You may notice the exclusion of the "Red Deer Cave People". I have chosen to exclude this "species" due to the fact that i, as many anthropologists, believe that it simply doesn´t represent its own species.

[ashcraft]

I don't remember the rules of constructing cladograms. When you draw a solid straight line from Homo ergaster to Homo antecessor, does that imply one species "morphed" into another?

fkaa

[megabass22]

Maybe cladogram isn´t the right word (I´m from sweden, and do not know every single english word), i made this to showcase which human species evolved when, and how they evolved, i believe the current consensus is that H. ergaster was the species that evolved into H. antecessor.

So this isn´t a cladogram, but it was the best word i could come up with to describe it.

EDIT: the proper term is "evolutionary tree" not cladogram, so just imagine every usage of the Word "cladogram" as "evolutionary tree" instead.

Edited June 22, 2014 by megabass22

[LordTrilobite]

Looks nice.

I seem to remember hearing about that Neanderthals were possibly decended from Homo heidelbergensis. Which would make sense since our ancestors and Neanderthals produced offspring. So they must be pretty close.

[megabass22]

I did intend to put the Neanderthals as descended from Homo heidelbergensis, but current fossils indicate they showed up at roughly the same time. I personally believe that H.heidelbergensis is the ancestor of H.neanderthalis, and that we just haven´t found ane earlier fossils yet, when they show up i´ll change it .

[ashcraft]

i believe the current consensus is that H. ergaster was the species that evolved into H. antecessor.

Are you saying that all H. ergaster evolved into H. antecessor? Or did they coexist for a time?

fkaa

[Harry Pristis]

Well now! I've been examining your phylogeny, and I think you've left off one significant branch of the tree. You've ignored A. aquaticus and A. foetidus.

Here's the correction I think you should make.

[megabass22]

Ashcraft: I'm not saying that they all evolved into H.antecessor. Though H.ergaster fossils stop appearing 1,3 million years ago, and H.antecessor fossils start to appear 1,2 million years ago. Evolution happens when isolated groups adapt to changes, which is why all chimpanzees hasn't evolved into humans, they never needed to leave the trees, while early human ancestors had to due to changes in the environment. I drew a line between them because at least some H.ergaster gave rise to H.antecessor.

Harry Pristis: ಠ~ಠ i know of the skunk ape cryptid, and have found no record of either species online (except for a post suspiciously made by you in this 2010 thread: http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?/topic/15922-hello/) , so i'm guessing they don't exist? So if It's not a joke then please show a source

[Harry Pristis]

Joke? The evidence is self-evident, isn't it. Megalodon sharks are extinct. And why else would they be extinct, but that their favorite prey went extinct. No, it wasn't because there were no more whales or dugong or seals to eat . . . there were just not enough apes to support the megashark population.

Really! It could happen -- not in Sweden, maybe (too cold), but here in Florida for sure!

[Auspex]

...here in Florida for sure!

This 'splains a lot...

[megabass22]

So megalodons crawled up from the water to eat apes with a peculiar smell? Seems reasonable enough

[Harry Pristis]

How disappointing. Ridicule is no substitute for logic. If you disagree with my hypothesis, present your rational criticism . . . tell us YOUR explanation of why megalodons became extinct.

Was it just coincidence that megalodons went missing from the Florida fossil record at the same time that the skunk apes were driven by hurricanes from the coastal areas of Florida and the SE?

[Auspex]

Scant terra firma available in what is now Florida for these cryptic apes during C. megalodon's heyday...

...just a bit up in the panhandle, it seems.

They must truly have been 'sitting ducks', having to tread water continuously.

[RyanNREMTP]

Does Oreopithecus fit in there anywhere?

[Harry Pristis]

Auspex posted:

Scant terra firma available in what is now Florida for these cryptic apes during C. megalodon's heyday...

...just a bit up in the panhandle, it seems.

They must truly have been 'sitting ducks', having to tread water continuously.

Well, now . . . Not only would there not be any land mammals during your 'heyday,' probably there would be no Australopithecines -- anywhere.

At least that was attempt at logically disproving my hypothesis -- a start.

Here's the timeframe, Pliocene, in which megalodon developed a taste for hominin:

[megabass22]

RyanNREMTP: Oreopithecus represent one of many extinct apes in Homininae (which contains Gorillas, Chimpanzees and Humans) i only wanted to focus on the human lineage, and i included the chimpanzees because i felt that they really did fit in my evolutionary tree (No Gorillas = Only tribe Hominini = No oreopithecus).

Harry Pristis: my hypothesis? Now i want to begin with that i don't know much about Megalodon, but am i wrong when i say it primarily fed on whales? As this shark was found worldwide, it couldn't have lived on a ape (with no fossil evidence) only found in Florida. When the ice age hit, the whales moved north, but Megalodon had to stay in warmer waters were it went extinct. Or am i completely wrong here?

[Auspex]

For the proposed ape species to have been the keystone prey for C. megalodon, so much so that the prey species' extinction led to the extinction of the predator, they would have to have been extremely numerous, and we would expect there to be some physical evidence of their existence in that case.

The premise that the one-time existence of 'skunk apes' is evinced by the extinction of their chief predator upon the ape's population collapse (assuming facts not in evidence in both circumstances) is a circle in the proof that cannot be sustained by any physical evidence.

[Harry Pristis]

megabass22 posted:

Harry Pristis: my hypothesis? Now i want to begin with that i don't know much about Megalodon, but am i wrong when i say it primarily fed on whales? As this shark was found worldwide, it couldn't have lived on a ape (with no fossil evidence) only found in Florida. When the ice age hit, the whales moved north, but Megalodon had to stay in warmer waters were it went extinct. Or am i completely wrong here?

There is no evidence that megalodon 'primarily' ate whales. Nor is there evidence that whales or megalodon moved with the onset of ice ages. There is only speculation . . . hypotheses. Not much different from my hypothesis about the Western Atlantic population of megalodon and its food preference. (Well . . . there are differences, but you haven't found them yet.)

[Harry Pristis]

Auspex Posted Today, 08:40 AM

For the proposed ape species to have been the keystone prey for C. megalodon, so much so that the prey species' extinction led to the extinction of the predator, they would have to have been extremely numerous, and we would expect there to be some physical evidence of their existence in that case.

The premise that the one-time existence of 'skunk apes' is evinced by the extinction of their chief predator upon the ape's population collapse (assuming facts not in evidence in both circumstances) is a circle in the proof that cannot be sustained by any physical evidence.

Oh, A. foetidus was abundant . . . easy livin' with plenty of food along the coast made for fecundity. The rarity of A. foetidus fossils is the result of sea level encroachment . . . all the skunk-ape fossils (as with the aquatic ape fossils before them) are inundated by the sea. Add to that the fact that all encounters between megalodon and foetidus were in the sea (and there was not much left over from such an encounter).

I wasn't able to follow your second sentence. Try breaking these run-on sentences into shorter statements. You're going in the right direction, I think.

[JohnJ]

I suspect this isn't about "skunk apes" or megalodons. In fact, I'm reminded of the wisdom in Rich's signature line: The plural of "anecdote" is not "evidence".

Presupposing the existence of "skunk apes" or "aquatic apes" in any relationship with Megalodon, is flawed from the start. But, I think Harry knows that.
As to what megaldon ate, I think you would look at the prey of similar modern analogs. As to why it went extinct, science is still trying to work that out. Both questions result in hypotheses at this time - not all of which are logical or rational.

[Auspex]

Harry Pristis is presenting us with a stimulating exercise in logical argument, and I am enjoying the challenge.

[Auspex]

...The rarity of A. foetidus fossils is the result of sea level encroachment . . . all the skunk-ape fossils (as with the aquatic ape fossils before them) are inundated by the sea...

It is more rightly be said that fossil remains of this crypto-species are non-existant, despite the proposal that they lived (and died) in an environment most favorable to preservation as fossils. Not only are there no smoking guns here, there are no guns to test as to whether they've ever been fired.

[megabass22]

For reasons obvious i will not include these species in the evolutionary tree ( only if substantial evidence of their existence is found)

[Cris]

Ahhh, this stuff is always fun.

Joke? The evidence is self-evident, isn't it. Megalodon sharks are extinct. And why else would they be extinct, but that their favorite prey went extinct. No, it wasn't because there were no more whales or dugong or seals to eat . . . there were just not enough apes to support the megashark population.

The argument above is a non-sequitur. It doesn't logically follow that the extinction of a species is evidence of the demise of it's prey.

Was it just coincidence that megalodons went missing from the Florida fossil record at the same time that the skunk apes were driven by hurricanes from the coastal areas of Florida and the SE?

Even if this were true (we've seen no evidence for such), correlation does not imply causation.

Also, the burden of proof lies upon the person making the claim. And there's a popular quote that goes something like this: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." -Christopher Hitchens

[Harry Pristis]

But . . . But . . . It seems so logical!

Even those deep shell beds on the SW coast are evidence of the violent hurricanes that plagued Florida in the Plio-Pleistocene. No australopicine population could withstand that onslaught, could it? They had to move inland, away from the beaches, where they don't thrive. Don't you readers believe what you intuitively know to be true? If you ever saw those shell-beds, you;d just know what happened to the skunk ape and to megalodon.