A new paper in Nature this week realigns--or rather, primarily reaffirms--paleo-anthropological understanding of how our stream of ancient relatives fits together. I must admit, it's beyond me, but fortunately, it's not beyond Kambiz Kamrani, who gives us the lowdown on his weblog today:
A cladistic analysis of 17 hominid skulls, from Kambiz Kamrani on Anthropology.net.
Comments
Psssst! Typo in the title (“Hominin”). True, I’m not one who should be talking…
Actually, hominin is spelled correctly, it’s not the same thing as ‘hominid’, but an interesting distinction. Here’s my definition of the term, and thanks for bringing this issue up again!
http://archaeology.about.com/od/hterms/g/hominin.htm
Kris
Thanks, my mistake. Although after reading a bit about it I have to confess that I agree with Thomas Greiner: the new terminology is more confusing than it should be.
Granted, with alacrity!
Kris