on phylogeny / what are we ?

[Crucible]

That being said, I don't think that the transitional species between our most recent common ancestor and modern humans are considered apes, because by the definition of a paraphyletic group, "A group of taxa is said to be paraphyletic if the group consists of all the descendants of a hypothetical closest common ancestor minus one or more monophyletic groups of descendants (typically one such group)" (Wikipedia for paraphyly).

I think I'm understanding your position better now. It would seem that the only phylogenetic problem was in first saying that humans are not apes, thus CREATING the paraphyleticistic ( is that a word ?) view of the group called "Apes".

Once the descendent groups and ancestor are under the same name , it's a good monophyletic grouping.

[Crucible]

The "great apes" were formerly treated as the family Pongidae. As noted above, this definition makes the Pongidae paraphyletic, and does not show that orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees and humans are all more closely related to one another than any of these four groups are to gibbons. Further, current evidence implies that humans share a common extinct ancestor with the chimpanzee line, from which we separated more recently than the gorilla line.

Further, current evidence implies that humans share a common extinct ancestor with the chimpanzee line, from which we separated more recently than the gorilla line.

I think I'm right, in the post above, because if this "current evidence", as suggested in Wiki, does suggest a split from the Chimp line...then Homo would more rightfully be a genus in the tribe Panini.

...although this
from which we separated more recently than the gorilla line

is also suggestive of a view that Gorillas would then be part of Pan-something

[Crucible]

All non orang animals considered human or ape would be Paninini ?
All animals considered human or ape would be Paninoidea ?

[Crucible]

Plus I'm laying down my own rule; in order to be correct, monophylogeneticistically, in any of this, one must state any grouping attempt thusly: "All animals*..blah blah blah". Never like this: "All primates...blah blah blah".

* or perhaps "'All life forms"

[Crucible]

OK, I think I've matched up the names w/ the groupings a bit better.

Pan plus Homo = Panini
Panini plus Gorilla = Paninae
Paninae plus Orangutan = Panidae
Panidae plus Hylobates = Panoidea

How's that ?

[aptitude]

That being said, I don't think that the transitional species between our most recent common ancestor and modern humans are considered apes, because by the definition of a paraphyletic group, "A group of taxa is said to be paraphyletic if the group consists of all the descendants of a hypothetical closest common ancestor minus one or more monophyletic groups of descendants (typically one such group)" (Wikipedia for paraphyly).

I think I'm understanding your position better now. It would seem that the only phylogenetic problem was in first saying that humans are not apes, thus CREATING the paraphyleticistic ( is that a word ?) view of the group called "Apes".

Once the descendent groups and ancestor are under the same name , it's a good monophyletic grouping.

Yes, that is exactly what I was trying to say.

OK, I think I've matched up the names w/ the groupings a bit better.

Pan plus Homo = Panini
Panini plus Gorilla = Paninae
Paninae plus Orangutan = Panidae
Panidae plus Hylobates = Panoidea

How's that ?

Well, I haven't really studied the names of primate groups, but I'll trust that you did your research and say that it sounds good.

[Crucible]

It's only the extant apes.

I'm considering making Bonobo the top of the heap...It's unlikely the Chimp line will be the source of any more species to come

For now I simply used genus or species common names ( Gorilla, Orang ) as "place holders"

[Crucible]

I think the rules for monophylogeneticism must have wording inclusive enough to force exclusion of non-monophyletic groupings. That is, by structuring the wording so that it's "All animals..blah blah", I seek to exclude features due to convergent evolution. It works by first including all animals, and the wording that follows must do the excluding.

[Crucible]

OK, I think I've matched up the names w/ the groupings a bit better.

Pan plus Homo = Panini
Panini plus Gorilla = Paninae
Paninae plus Orangutan = Panidae
Panidae plus Hylobates = Panoidea

How's that ?

In the above, I think some groupings are good monophylogenetic groupings and some aren't ( but could be good groupings for work other than monophylogenetic type ) . I'll try to distinguish them using the terms given and my rule. As an example, offhand it seems "Panoidea" would be OK.

[chikis]

What is phylogeny? I need to understand that term very well.