Liste des Groupes | Revenir à sb paleontology |
Op 04-08-2024 om 21:19 schreef JTEM:To be fair, if those are Bayesian posteriors, many of them are pretty bad. But what is JTEM's hypothesis?
Pandora wrote:If it doesn't exceed your attention span you can read the paper at:
>Actually, there's more than one individual of this taxon, from three different localities (TM 247, TM 266 and TM 292). This additional material was announced in Nature in 2005:>
Where are those localities? I just did an exhaustive 30 second search
and could only find an actual location associated with 266.
>
And, yes, I did search longer than 30 seconds but it wouldn't have been
nearly as funny if I offered a better time estimate...
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7920249
Anyway, the three Sahelanthropus sites are within an area of 0.73 km2.
No, the Toros-Menalla Sahelanthropus sites are about 150 km west of the Koro-Toro australopithecine site and stratigraphically ~3.5 million years older.Not too far from where another hominin taxon, Australopithecus bahrelghazali, was discovered in 1995.>
That appears to be where the 266 was found.
But why do you think South-Africa is the right place?If you think that's the wrong place you must have some concept of what is the right place. Where would that be?>
Well any other day of the week the clown act insists it's South Africa:
>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cradle_of_Humankind
>
I would have guessed that you knew.
The phylogenetically most basal and stratigraphically oldest hominins are from East- and North-Africa.
See for example:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2023.103437
Their Bayesian inference analysis, with posterior probabilities for nodes given as percentages (fig.6):
https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0047248423001161-gr6_lrg.jpg
That tree topology would refute your hypothesis.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.