Evolutionary theory, systematics, and the study of human origins.

IF 1.6 2区 社会学 Q1 ANTHROPOLOGY
Ian Tattersall
{"title":"Evolutionary theory, systematics, and the study of human origins.","authors":"Ian Tattersall","doi":"10.4436/JASS.10007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Paleoanthropology's relationship with evolutionary theory has not been entirely happy. The anatomists who dominated paleoanthropology for its first century had little interest in biological diversity and its causes, or in hominins' place in that diversity, or in the rules and principles of zoological nomenclature - which they basically ignored entirely. When, as the twentieth century passed its midpoint, Ernst Mayr introduced theory to paleoanthropology in the form of the gradualist Modern Evolutionary Synthesis (in its most hardened form), he shocked students of human evolution not only into a strictly linear evolutionary mindset, but into a taxonomic minimalism that would for years obscure the signal of phylogenetic diversity and vigorous evolutionary experimentation among hominins that was starting to emerge from a rapidly enlarging hominin fossil record. Subsequently, the notion of episodic as opposed to gradualist evolution re-established phylogenies as typically branching, and species as bounded entities with births, histories, and deaths; but the implications of this revised perspective were widely neglected by paleoanthropologists, who continued to reflexively cram diverse new morphologies into existing taxonomic pigeonholes. For Pleistocene hominins, the effective systematic algorithm became, \"if it isn't Australopithecus, it must be Homo\" (or vice versa), thereby turning both taxa into wastebaskets. The recent development of the \"Extended Evolutionary Synthesis\" has only exacerbated the resulting caricature of phylogenetic structure within Homininae, by offering developmental/phenotypic plasticity as an excuse for associating wildly differing morphologies within the same taxon. Homo erectus has been a favorite victim of this foible. Biological species are indeed morphologically variable. But they are only variable within limits; and until we stop brushing diverse morphologies under the rug of developmental plasticity, paleoanthropology will remain at a major impasse.</p>","PeriodicalId":48668,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Anthropological Sciences","volume":"100 ","pages":"19-43"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Anthropological Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4436/JASS.10007","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Paleoanthropology's relationship with evolutionary theory has not been entirely happy. The anatomists who dominated paleoanthropology for its first century had little interest in biological diversity and its causes, or in hominins' place in that diversity, or in the rules and principles of zoological nomenclature - which they basically ignored entirely. When, as the twentieth century passed its midpoint, Ernst Mayr introduced theory to paleoanthropology in the form of the gradualist Modern Evolutionary Synthesis (in its most hardened form), he shocked students of human evolution not only into a strictly linear evolutionary mindset, but into a taxonomic minimalism that would for years obscure the signal of phylogenetic diversity and vigorous evolutionary experimentation among hominins that was starting to emerge from a rapidly enlarging hominin fossil record. Subsequently, the notion of episodic as opposed to gradualist evolution re-established phylogenies as typically branching, and species as bounded entities with births, histories, and deaths; but the implications of this revised perspective were widely neglected by paleoanthropologists, who continued to reflexively cram diverse new morphologies into existing taxonomic pigeonholes. For Pleistocene hominins, the effective systematic algorithm became, "if it isn't Australopithecus, it must be Homo" (or vice versa), thereby turning both taxa into wastebaskets. The recent development of the "Extended Evolutionary Synthesis" has only exacerbated the resulting caricature of phylogenetic structure within Homininae, by offering developmental/phenotypic plasticity as an excuse for associating wildly differing morphologies within the same taxon. Homo erectus has been a favorite victim of this foible. Biological species are indeed morphologically variable. But they are only variable within limits; and until we stop brushing diverse morphologies under the rug of developmental plasticity, paleoanthropology will remain at a major impasse.

进化论、系统学和对人类起源的研究。
古人类学与进化论的关系并不完全愉快。主宰古人类学第一个世纪的解剖学家们对生物多样性及其成因,对人族在这种多样性中的地位,对动物命名法的规则和原则几乎没有兴趣——他们基本上完全忽视了这些。当二十世纪过了中期,恩斯特·迈尔以渐进主义的现代进化综合理论的形式(以其最顽固的形式)向古人类学引入理论时,他不仅震惊了研究人类进化的学生,使他们产生了严格的线性进化思维,而是进入了一种分类上的极简主义,这种极简主义多年来掩盖了人类系统发育多样性和活跃的进化实验的信号,这些信号开始从迅速扩大的古人类化石记录中显现出来。随后,与渐进式进化相反的偶发性进化概念重新确立了系统发生是典型的分支,物种是有出生、历史和死亡的有限实体;但古人类学家普遍忽视了这种修正观点的含义,他们继续条件反射性地将各种新形态塞进现有的分类分类中。对于更新世古人类,有效的系统算法变成了,“如果不是南方古猿,那一定是人属”(反之亦然),从而把两个类群都变成了废纸篓。最近“扩展进化合成”的发展,通过提供发育/表型可塑性作为在同一分类单元内将截然不同的形态联系起来的借口,只会加剧人科中系统发育结构的讽刺。直立人一直是这一弱点的受害者。生物物种确实在形态上是可变的。但它们只在一定范围内是可变的;除非我们停止在发育可塑性的毯子下掩盖各种形态,否则古人类学将仍然处于一个主要的僵局中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Anthropological Sciences
Journal of Anthropological Sciences Social Sciences-Anthropology
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
5.60%
发文量
7
期刊介绍: The Journal of Anthropological Sciences (JASs) publishes reviews, original papers and notes concerning human paleontology, prehistory, biology and genetics of extinct and extant populations. Particular attention is paid to the significance of Anthropology as an interdisciplinary field of research. Only papers in English can be considered for publication. All contributions are revised by the editorial board together with the panel of referees.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信