Advertisement

Man and His Classification

  • Héctor N. Seuánez

Abstract

Classically, taxonomists relied on anatomical characteristics of living beings or of extinct fossils for assigning organisms to taxons, so that the classification indicated a hierarchical order of macro-structural complexity. For pre-evolutionary taxonomists, the main task of systematics was (1) to classify, (2) to name, and (3) to indicate degrees of resemblance between organisms. After the theory of evolution was put forward, systematics rapidly became on evolutionary science whose most important aim was to show relationships by descent. Simpson (1944) championed this latter approach to systematics, and moreover, used this classification to estimate the rate of structural evolution of organisms during phylogeny. A good example provided by the lineage of the horse (genus Equus) which has undergone eight successive genera in roughly 45 million years. This works out a approximately 0.18 genera per 106 years, a standard evolutionary rate of organic change which Simpson called “horotelic”. There was also a second approach to the study of organic evolution, based on quantitative characteristics, e.g., brain size, which, as we have previously stated, has increased in the human lineage by a factor of approximately 3 in about 5 million years.

Keywords

Amino Acid Substitution Chromosome Level Pygmy Chimpanzee Eukaryote Genome Nucleotide Replacement 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Dayhoff, M.O. (ed.): Atlas of protein sequences and structure; National Biochemical Research Foundation. Vol. 5. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Medical Center 1972Google Scholar
  2. Goodman, M.: Protein sequence and immunological specificity. Their role in phylogenetic studies of the primates. In: Phylogeny of the primates. Luckett, W.P., Szalay, J. S. (eds.), pp. 219–248. New York: Plenum Press 1975Google Scholar
  3. King, M.C., Wilson, A.S.: Evolution at two levels in human and chimpanzees. Science 188, 107–116 (1975)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Kohne, D.E., Chiscon, J.A., Hoyer, B.H.: Evolution of primate DNA sequences. J. Hum. Evol. 1, 627–644 (1972)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ohno, S.: An argument for the genetic simplicity of man and other mammals. J. Hum. Evol. 1, 651–662 (1972)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Pearson, P. L.: The uniqueness of the human karyotype. In: Chromosome identification techniques and applications in biology and medicine. Caspersson, T., Zech, L. (eds.), pp. 145–151. New York, London: Academic Press 1973Google Scholar
  7. Simpson, G.G.: Tempo and mode in evolution. New York: Columbia University Press 1944Google Scholar
  8. Simpson, G.G.: The principles of classification and classification of the mammals. Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. 85, 1–350 (1945)Google Scholar
  9. Simpson, G.G.: In: Classification and human evolution. Washburn, S.L. (ed.). Chicago: Aldine 1963Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1979

Authors and Affiliations

  • Héctor N. Seuánez
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Genetics, Institute of BiologyUniversidade Federal do Rio de JaneiroBrazil

Personalised recommendations