Shoshani J, Groves C P, Simons E L, Gunnell G F
Department of Biological Sciences, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan 48202, USA.
Mol Phylogenet Evol. 1996 Feb;5(1):102-54. doi: 10.1006/mpev.1996.0009.
Our comparative study of morphological (our data on selected living primates) and molecular characters (from the literature) confirms that, overall, phylogenetic reconstructions of Primates, and consequently their classifications, are more similar than dissimilar. When data from fossil Primates are incorporated, there may be several possible relationships among living Primates; the difference between most of them hinges mainly on the position of Tarsius. In one hypothesis, tarsiers are closely related to lemurs and lorises, and thus Primates is divided into Prosimii [lorises, lemurs, and tarsiers] and Anthropoidea [Platyrrhini and Catarrhini, i.e., monkeys, apes, and humans]. Two additional alternatives are that Tarsius is a sister group to the clade embracing lorises + lemurs and Anthropoidea and that in which all three lineages (Tarsius, lorises + lemurs, and Anthropoidea) form a polychotomy. In another hypothesis, tarsiers are closely related to anthropoids, giving these two branches: Strepsirhini [lemurs, lorises] and Haplorhini [tarsiers and Anthropoidea (Platyrrhini, the New World monkeys, and Catarrhini, Old World monkeys and Hominoidea)]. The first three alternatives gain some support from the fossil record, and the fourth from morphology of the living Tarsius and molecular data. It is emphasized that the morphological characters employed in this study for Tarsius are based on the only surviving genus of once-diverse tarsiiform primates known from the Eocene, and, although considered a "living fossil," it cannot represent all of them. Furthermore, Tarsius embodies derived features of its own which may affect its systematic position, but not necessarily the position of Tarsiiformes. Although the early Tertiary adapoids might have more nearly resembled anthropoids in their biochemistry and placental developments, this hypothesis is not testable from fossils, and any inferred relationships here must be based on characters of skeletal anatomy. Alternatively, anthropoids may be derived from certain omomyids or from some as yet undiscovered Eocene African taxon. Close relationships among Homo, Pan, and Gorilla have been confirmed during recent decades; Pongo is the sister group to this trichotomy. With increasing molecular data, Homo and Pan appear to be closer to each other than to any other living hominid taxon. Gorilla is a sister group to the Homo-Pan clade and Pongo is a sister group to all of them. Morphologists have given limited evidence for such a dichotomous grouping. In this study, we support the Homo-Pan clade, although with characters not as strong as for other clades.
我们对形态学特征(所选现存灵长类动物的数据)和分子特征(来自文献)的比较研究证实,总体而言,灵长类动物的系统发育重建以及相应的分类,相似之处多于不同之处。当纳入来自化石灵长类动物的数据时,现存灵长类动物之间可能存在几种可能的关系;它们之间的差异主要取决于跗猴的位置。在一种假设中,跗猴与狐猴和懒猴密切相关,因此灵长目被分为原猴亚目(懒猴、狐猴和跗猴)和类人猿亚目(阔鼻猴类和狭鼻猴类,即猴子、猿和人类)。另外两种可能性是,跗猴是包含懒猴 + 狐猴和类人猿亚目的进化枝的姐妹群,以及这三个谱系(跗猴、懒猴 + 狐猴和类人猿亚目)形成多歧分类的情况。在另一种假设中,跗猴与类人猿密切相关,形成这两个分支:原猴亚目(狐猴、懒猴)和简鼻亚目(跗猴和类人猿亚目(阔鼻猴类,即新大陆猴,和狭鼻猴类,即旧大陆猴和人猿总科))。前三种可能性从化石记录中获得了一些支持,第四种从现存跗猴的形态学和分子数据中获得支持。需要强调的是,本研究中用于跗猴的形态学特征是基于始新世已知的曾经种类繁多的跗猴型灵长类动物中唯一幸存的属,并且,尽管它被视为“活化石”,但它不能代表所有此类动物。此外,跗猴具有其自身特有的衍生特征,这可能会影响其系统发育位置,但不一定影响跗猴型灵长类动物的位置。尽管早第三纪的兔猴型类在生物化学和胎盘发育方面可能更类似于类人猿,但这个假设无法从化石中得到验证,这里任何推断的关系都必须基于骨骼解剖特征。或者,类人猿可能源自某些始镜猴科动物或一些尚未发现的始新世非洲分类单元。近几十年来,人类、黑猩猩和大猩猩之间的密切关系已得到证实;猩猩是这个三分法的姐妹群。随着分子数据的增加,人类和黑猩猩似乎彼此比与任何其他现存的灵长类分类单元更接近。大猩猩是人类 - 黑猩猩进化枝的姐妹群,猩猩是它们所有的姐妹群。形态学家对此二分法分组提供的证据有限。在本研究中,我们支持人类 - 黑猩猩进化枝,尽管所依据的特征不像其他进化枝那样有力。