| Summary: | Phylogenies constructed from skeletal data often contradict those built from genetic data. This study evaluates the phylogenetic utility of adult male, female, and juvenile hominoid cranial bones. First, I used geometric morphometric methods to compare the cranial bone shapes of seven primate genera (Gorilla, Homo, Hylobates, Macaca, Nomascus, Pan, and Pongo). I then coded these shapes as continuous characters and constructed cladograms via parsimony analysis for the adult male, female, and juvenile character matrices. Finally, I evaluated the similarity of these cladograms to one another and to the genetic phylogeny using topological distance software. Cladograms did not differ from one another or the genetic phylogeny less than comparisons of randomly generated trees. These results suggest that cranial shapes are unlikely to provide accurate phylogenetic information, and agree with other analyses of skeletal data that fail to recover the molecular phylogeny (Collard & Wood, 2000, 2001; Springer et al., 2007). === by Thomas A. DiVito, II. === Title of the abstract: The role of ontogeny for reconstructing hominid phylogeny. === Thesis (M.A.)--Florida Atlantic University, 2011. === Includes bibliography. === Electronic reproduction. Boca Raton, Fla., 2011. Mode of access: World Wide Web.
|
|---|
