The conundrum of hominin phylogeny

[Oxyaena]

Within the past two decades a "hominin revolution" has occurred within
paleoanthropology, wherein far more hominin species and fossils have
been discovered than at any other point in history, ranging from the
enigmatic *Kenyanthropus platyops* (a taxon I covered in an earlier
post) and the equally enigmatic Denisova hominin (an extinct species or
subspecies of human belonging to the genus *Homo* and has contributed
some of its DNA to members of our species outside of Africa, with its
DNA contributions being generally diluted across the Americas and
Eurasia, and at its strongest in Melanesia), to strange human species
that equally represent our australopithecine forebears as they do the
more derived members of the genus *Homo*, including modern humans.

Indeed, we've discovered so many new human species (by "human" I mean
"hominin") that we are unable to accurately determine their phylogenetic
placement for many of them, and the family tree of Hominina has become a
clusteruck of many enigmatic species clearly more closely related to
Linnaeus than they are to Kanzi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanzi),
but how much more closely related to us is up for debate.

We've discovered so many new species that only a very rough outline of
the family tree of Hominina can be reconstructed, and many of the
details have yet to be filled in or have been overturned by the rapid
pace of new discoveries in paleoanthropology. I`m going to construct a
heavily generalized tree to demonstrate to you what I mean:

Early Hominina includes *Sahelanthropus tchadensis*, *Orrorin tugensis*,
and now *Graecopithecus*. From these early pioneers of bipedality we get
*Ardipithecus*, whom in turn *Australopithecus* probably arose from.
Here's where things get *extremely* tricky, for we've discovered so many
Australopithecines that it's hard to determine which of these species
*Homo* derives from, and that's not mentioning *Paranthropus*, the
sister lineage to *Homo* that also evolved from *Australopithecus*, and
some authors prefer to include *Paranthropus* in *Australopithecus*, but
I would have to disagree for fear that *Australopithecus* becomes a
wastebasket taxon.

*Kenyanthropus platyops* also occurred during this time, and we have yet
t accurately determine its phylogenetic placement within Hominina for
the sheer fact that its remains are too poorly preserved and too few to
allow an accurate reconstruction of its phylogenetic placement, and the
features that we *do* know *Kenyanthropus* possessed are general of
hominins, including relatively smaller teeth than, say, *Pan* or
*Gorilla*, and a relatively flat face compared to non-hominin apes
(*Paranthropus later gained heavy teeth and a protruding face, but these
features are derivative of *Paranthropus* and not its australopithecine
ancestors).

My money is that *Homo* evolved from something like *Kenyanthropus
platyops* or *Australopithecus sediba*. Among the genus *Homo* it has
been suggested that everything from *H. habilis* to *H. floresiensis* be
laced in *Homo erectus*, and there is evidence to back this up, paper
linked here:

David Lordkipanidze, Marcia S. Ponce de Leòn, Ann Margvelashvili, Yoel
Rak, G. Philip Rightmire, Abesalom Vekua, Christoph P. E. Zollikofer (18
October 2013). "A Complete Skull from Dmanisi, Georgia, and the
Evolutionary Biology of Early Homo". Science. 342 (6156): 326–331.
doi:10.1126/science.1238484.

I'll leave a post for dealing with *Homo* in detail for another day,
however.

[RonO]

Look at the phylogeny of deer. We have DNA from extant species to work
out the mess. Why would you expect Hominin to be any different?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/8197425_Evolution_and_phylogeny_of_Old_World_deer

[Oxyaena]

Because only one species of Hominina is extant (namely, us), and we only
have DNA for three of the species of Hominina, while there are multiple
cervids extant, and we have enough DNA of them to work out their
phylogenetic relationships.

You're not going to be able to determine the phylogenetic placement of
*Kenyanthropus platyops* or *Sahelanthropus tchadensis* by molecular
means, they're far too old, and few remains we have of those two genera
are *extremely* poorly preserved.


>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/8197425_Evolution_and_phylogeny_of_Old_World_deer
>
>
>

[RonO]

Why should you be able to do that? The Deer example tells you that
multiple species existed along side each other. We needed DNA to sort
some of the Deer mess out when we had living intact samples. How much
better do you expect to do with fossil fragments? We have likely killed
off all the other upright walkers, but our ape ancestors still exist
where we really don't want to live. Their habitats have been
marginalized and it would not be surprising if they all went extinct in
the wild, but they did exist and we know how related to us they are
because we have DNA samples.

Ron Okimoto
>
>
>>
>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/8197425_Evolution_and_phylogeny_of_Old_World_deer
>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Mario Petrinovic]

Have Greek hominines disapear?
BTW, I just want to copy this from Wikipedia:
"Organisms in this subfamily are described as hominine or hominines
(not to be confused with the terms hominins or hominini)."
I mean, I cannot not to think that somebody does this on purpose.
(People are real idiots.) I am suppose not to confuse the term hominines
with the term hominins. If I am not suppose to confuse those two terms,
why the author of those two terms did everything he can think of to make
me confuse those two terms? Now, *this* is the real question in the
whole story.
Because, if the Author made so maximum effort to confuse me in regards
to this simple thing, what other things he does day and night to confuse
me on everything else?

[Oxyaena]

No, "hominine" refers to members of Homininae, the subfamily of
Hominidae containing chimps, gorillas, and humans. The term "hominins"
refers to the clade "Hominina", which is only comprised of everything
more closely related to you and me than to Kanzi the bonobo.

[snip]

[Mario Petrinovic]

Of course. I was just wondering why we don't have the names of
baseball teams like this: Red Sox, Red Sax, Red Sex, Red Sux, Rad Sox,
and so on.
I mean, you just make a typo, and voila, you have a complete mess.
But, "smart" idiots would say, take extreme care not to make a typo. I
would rather take extreme care to have a sense and logic, than about the
form.
I mean, aren't the subjects of science already blurry and confusing
enough, without making an effort to seal up the confusion?
It is like the authors of scientific standard wanted to make sure that
things should be as confusing as possible.

[Oxyaena]

*Pan* and *Gorilla* fall outside of Hominini, while Neanderthals and
Denisovans are fully human, only barely outside of our own species.
While the DNA of gorillas and chimps are great for working out the
phylogeny of Homininae, when it comes to Hominini they fail, for they
fall outside of it.

Neanderthals and Denisovans fall within Hominini, but are so close to us
that their DNA only allows us to work out the relationship between our
three species, each descending from *Homo heidelbergensis* or *Homo
erectus*, the latter two we don't have *any* DNA for. The DNA of chimps
and orangs aren't going to tell us where *Kenyanthropus* falls inside
Hominini. I still don't see how you don't get this.


>
> Ron Okimoto

[Oxyaena]

On 10/6/2018 5:37 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
[snip whining]

>         I mean, aren't the subjects of science already blurry and
> confusing enough, without making an effort to seal up the confusion?

Stop whining, those are the names of the taxa in question. They all use
*Homo* as the nominal basis for the names of these taxa.

>         It is like the authors of scientific standard wanted to make
> sure that things should be as confusing as possible.
>

The names were invented long before you or I came around, specifically
the names for the taxa *Hominidae* and *Homo*. Once Linnaeus classified
our species as *Homo sapiens*, a precedent was set for others to name
our family along an admittedly anthropocentric basis, I`m not going to
rename Hominidae *Gorillidae* after Gorillas because you complained, I`m
going to name it after my own species as well as respecting precedent.

[zencycle]

On Sunday, October 7, 2018 at 9:00:04 AM UTC-4, Oxyaena wrote:
> On 10/6/2018 5:37 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>
> >         It is like the authors of scientific standard wanted to make
> > sure that things should be as confusing as possible.
> >
>
> The names were invented long before you or I came around,

Back when these terms were coined, people in the field were looking for ways to unwind after long periods of research, and it became something of a drinking game. Everytime someone misspoke Homininae with Hominidae, they had to do a shot of laboratory grade ethyl alcohol.

[Peter Nyikos]

Oxyaena has been inadvertently revealing how crashingly
incompetent she is at systematics and dating, especially dating the
human-chimp split, on a thread where even JTEM and Mario can more
than hold their own against her.

The following post is one of many where this incompetence is
being laid bare as this thread here in talk.origins is unfolding:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.bio.paleontology/dpR_mOvZ5Q4/EQqLIwBrBQAJ
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 14:07:07 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <37cd8b6f-9ffe-4035...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: The Big Splits In Hominidae


Now, on to the post at hand.

On Sunday, October 7, 2018 at 9:00:04 AM UTC-4, Oxyaena wrote:

> On 10/6/2018 11:54 AM, RonO wrote:
> > On 10/6/2018 8:56 AM, Oxyaena wrote:
> >> On 10/6/2018 9:02 AM, RonO wrote:
> >>> On 10/6/2018 7:53 AM, Oxyaena wrote:
> >>>> Within the past two decades a "hominin revolution" has occurred
> >>>> within paleoanthropology, wherein far more hominin species and
> >>>> fossils have been discovered than at any other point in history,

All this means is that the "splitters" reign supreme and the
"lumpers" are biding their time -- for now.

This pendulum takes decades for its swings. A hundred years
ago the splitters also reigned supreme, with Pithecanthropus
and Sinanthropus [now both Homo erectus] and something like a
dozens species of Homo (only one of which, Piltdown Man, was
a fraud) starting with Homo heiderbergensis.

The lumpers took over in mid-century, putting all of the
earlier Homo into Homo sapiens and putting us and several
of the others into the subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens.

> >>>> ranging from the enigmatic *Kenyanthropus platyops* (a taxon I
> >>>> covered in an earlier post) and the equally enigmatic Denisova
> >>>> hominin (an extinct species or subspecies of human belonging to the
> >>>> genus *Homo* and has contributed some of its DNA to members of our
> >>>> species outside of Africa, with its DNA contributions being
> >>>> generally diluted across the Americas and Eurasia, and at its
> >>>> strongest in Melanesia), to strange human species that equally
> >>>> represent our australopithecine forebears as they do the more
> >>>> derived members of the genus *Homo*, including modern humans.
> >>>>
> >>>> Indeed, we've discovered so many new human species (by "human" I
> >>>> mean "hominin") that we are unable to accurately determine their
> >>>> phylogenetic placement for many of them,

Too much interbreeding. See the link above where you supported
interbreeding between proto-humans and proto-chimps, on the basis
of a 2006 article that you glommed onto in PubMed (your Bible for
paleontology and paleoanthropology, it seems) which gave a rather
enigmatic "first split" followed by fusion by
interbreeding followed by a final split.

You only had access to the abstract; the enigmatic "first split"
is taken from the body of the paper where there is a neat
diagram showing how it is viewed by the authors.

<small snip>

> >>>> We've discovered so many new species that only a very rough outline
> >>>> of the family tree of Hominina can be reconstructed, and many of the
> >>>> details have yet to be filled in or have been overturned by the
> >>>> rapid pace of new discoveries in paleoanthropology. I`m going to
> >>>> construct a heavily generalized tree to demonstrate to you what I mean:
> >>>>
> >>>> Early Hominina includes *Sahelanthropus tchadensis*, *Orrorin
> >>>> tugensis*, and now *Graecopithecus*.

Just why are you including these Hominini in Hominina?

> >>>> From these early pioneers of
> >>>> bipedality we get *Ardipithecus*, whom in turn *Australopithecus*
> >>>> probably arose from.

Now THESE are undisputed Hominina.

> >>>> Here's where things get *extremely* tricky, for

... a rank amateur like yourself. Or are you taking your
pontifications from the article you cite below? Have you
even taken a look at the article itself?

<snip pontifications>



> >>>> My money

(Your two cents' worth, give or take a couple of cents)

> >>>> is that *Homo* evolved from something like *Kenyanthropus
> >>>> platyops* or *Australopithecus sediba*.

It'll be interesting to see how JTEM reacts to your pontifications.
He's studied this stuff many times longer than you have, and is
much more incisive than Mario.


<snip more pontifications>

> >>>> Among the genus *Homo* it
> >>>> has been suggested that everything from *H. habilis* to *H.
> >>>> floresiensis* be laced in *Homo erectus*, and there is evidence to
> >>>> back this up, paper linked here:

The smart money says that this paper only supports this last bit
and is silent about the pontifications that I snipped.

WRONG! Pan is in Hominini.

You really should try to get clear on the distinction between
Hominini (tribe) and Hominina (subtribe).

> while Neanderthals and
> Denisovans are fully human, only barely outside of our own species.

Don't you mean barely outside our subspecies?

> While the DNA of gorillas and chimps are great for working out the
> phylogeny of Homininae, when it comes to Hominini they fail, for they
> fall outside of it.

GIGO.

> Neanderthals and Denisovans fall within Hominini,

Also within Homo. Most anthropologists would put them within Homo sapiens
as well, AFAIK.

> but are so close to us
> that their DNA only allows us to work out the relationship between our
> three species, each descending from *Homo heidelbergensis* or *Homo
> erectus*, the latter two we don't have *any* DNA for. The DNA of chimps
> and orangs aren't going to tell us where *Kenyanthropus* falls inside
> Hominini. I still don't see how you don't get this.

I'll leave it to you two perennial trolls to work this one out
between yourselves.


Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

[RonO]

Actually you need the outgroup of the other apes to do the correct
analysis of Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA.

>
> Neanderthals and Denisovans fall within Hominini, but are so close to us
> that their DNA only allows us to work out the relationship between our
> three species, each descending from *Homo heidelbergensis* or *Homo
> erectus*, the latter two we don't have *any* DNA for. The DNA of chimps
> and orangs aren't going to tell us where *Kenyanthropus* falls inside
> Hominini. I still don't see how you don't get this.

The existing DNA data does not tell us that we all descended from H.
heidelbergensis.

The lack of DNA data is one of the reasons there is a conundrum of the
hominin phylogeny. If we had DNA from all the fossils we could sort the
mess out.

Ron Okimoto
>
>
>>
>> Ron Okimoto
>

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 10:00:05 AM UTC-4, zencycle wrote:
> On Sunday, October 7, 2018 at 9:00:04 AM UTC-4, Oxyaena wrote:
> > On 10/6/2018 5:37 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> >
> > >         It is like the authors of scientific standard wanted to make
> > > sure that things should be as confusing as possible.
> > >
> >
> > The names were invented long before you or I came around,

And formerly used in ways that are incompatible with present day
usage. Romer (1945) restricted all of Hominidae to Homo, putting
all the "great apes" and their ancestors back to *Propliopithecus*
in Simiidae along with the australopithecines. Colbert (1955) put
the extant great apes in Pongidae and only Homo into Hominidae,
and was undecided as to where to put the australopithecines.

Carroll (1988) moved the australopithecines into Hominidae
and split the rest of Colbert's Pongidae in two, putting gibbons
into Hylobatidae and keeping the other great apes, including
extinct ones, into what he called Pongidae.

Then the cladophiles got into the act. Due to what seems to
be a strong streak of anthropomorphism, they expanded
Hominidae to include all of Carroll's Pongidae. Needing a name for the
clade {Homo, Pan, Gorilla} in contrast to Ponginae, the subfamily of
orangutans and their kin, they decided to get really anthropomorphic
and shoved the bunch into Homininae (probably doing it to Pan before
they did it to Gorilla).

They split Homininae into tribe Hominini [1] and tribe Gorillini,
and then split Hominini into subtribes Hominina and Panina.

[1] Why not e.g. Panini? anthropomorphism, don'tcha know?

> Back when these terms were coined, people in the field were looking for ways to unwind after long periods of research, and it became something of a drinking game. Everytime someone misspoke Homininae with Hominidae, they had to do a shot of laboratory grade ethyl alcohol.

And the probable reason was the determination of cladophiles to
impose their commandeering of old names for clades they never
were attached to before.

Cladophiles have commandeered names all over the place, banishing
a great many extinct tetrapods known formerly as amphibians from Tetrapoda.

There is a movements afoot to commandeer Amphibia to mean
Lissamphibia, the clade that includes only living amphibians and
everything descended from their last common ancestor. Of course
then "Lissamphibia" would be quietly retired.

There is also a movement afoot to banish all known Mesozoic birds
(Archaeopteryx, Confuciusornis, Ichthyornis, Hesperornis...)
from Aves, and to commandeer Aves to mean Neornithes...

[continue as above, substituting "Neornithes" for "Lissamphibia"]


Isn't Newspeak wonderful? :-) :-(

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina

http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/

[Oxyaena]

On 10/9/2018 6:44 PM, Peter Nyikos lied about the following:

> Oxyaena has been inadvertently revealing how crashingly
> incompetent she is at systematics and dating, especially dating the
> human-chimp split, on a thread where even JTEM and Mario can more
> than hold their own against her.

Complete and utter bullshit. Stop libeling me, I was the one who
explained the difference Between Hominini and Homininae to Mario, NOT you.

>
> The following post is one of many where this incompetence is
> being laid bare as this thread here in talk.origins is unfolding:
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.bio.paleontology/dpR_mOvZ5Q4/EQqLIwBrBQAJ
> Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 14:07:07 -0700 (PDT)
> Message-ID: <37cd8b6f-9ffe-4035...@googlegroups.com>
> Subject: Re: The Big Splits In Hominidae
>
>
> Now, on to the post at hand.

All of that is irrelevant to the post at hand, and only showcases how
much of an insult addict you really are.

>
> On Sunday, October 7, 2018 at 9:00:04 AM UTC-4, Oxyaena wrote:
>> On 10/6/2018 11:54 AM, RonO wrote:
>>> On 10/6/2018 8:56 AM, Oxyaena wrote:
>>>> On 10/6/2018 9:02 AM, RonO wrote:
>>>>> On 10/6/2018 7:53 AM, Oxyaena wrote:
>>>>>> Within the past two decades a "hominin revolution" has occurred
>>>>>> within paleoanthropology, wherein far more hominin species and
>>>>>> fossils have been discovered than at any other point in history,
>

[snip pontificating]

>
>>>>>> ranging from the enigmatic *Kenyanthropus platyops* (a taxon I
>>>>>> covered in an earlier post) and the equally enigmatic Denisova
>>>>>> hominin (an extinct species or subspecies of human belonging to the
>>>>>> genus *Homo* and has contributed some of its DNA to members of our
>>>>>> species outside of Africa, with its DNA contributions being
>>>>>> generally diluted across the Americas and Eurasia, and at its
>>>>>> strongest in Melanesia), to strange human species that equally
>>>>>> represent our australopithecine forebears as they do the more
>>>>>> derived members of the genus *Homo*, including modern humans.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Indeed, we've discovered so many new human species (by "human" I
>>>>>> mean "hominin") that we are unable to accurately determine their
>>>>>> phylogenetic placement for many of them,
>

[snip pontificating]

>>>>>> We've discovered so many new species that only a very rough outline
>>>>>> of the family tree of Hominina can be reconstructed, and many of the
>>>>>> details have yet to be filled in or have been overturned by the
>>>>>> rapid pace of new discoveries in paleoanthropology. I`m going to
>>>>>> construct a heavily generalized tree to demonstrate to you what I mean:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Early Hominina includes *Sahelanthropus tchadensis*, *Orrorin
>>>>>> tugensis*, and now *Graecopithecus*.
>
> Just why are you including these Hominini in Hominina?

Because, dipshit, Hominina is the clade containing Hominini, not the
other way around. You really need to look for glass before accusing
others of incompetence.

>
>
>>>>>> From these early pioneers of
>>>>>> bipedality we get *Ardipithecus*, whom in turn *Australopithecus*
>>>>>> probably arose from.
>
> Now THESE are undisputed Hominina.

You mean *Hominini*, you dithering ignoramus.

>
>
>>>>>> Here's where things get *extremely* tricky, for
>
> ... a rank amateur like yourself.

Said the pot.

Or are you taking your
> pontifications from the article you cite below? Have you
> even taken a look at the article itself?

Is it even physically possible for you to stop talking out of your ass?
Everything I wrote was of my own volition, you narcissistic asshole.

>
> <snip pontifications>
>
>
>
>>>>>> My money
>
> (Your two cents' worth, give or take a couple of cents)

You love trolling me. You can't just help yourself.

>
>
>>>>>> is that *Homo* evolved from something like *Kenyanthropus
>>>>>> platyops* or *Australopithecus sediba*.
>
> It'll be interesting to see how JTEM reacts to your pontifications.

It'll be interesting to see when you stop being a troll, but I doubt
that'll ever happen.

> He's studied this stuff many times longer than you have, and is

I sincerely doubt that. Are you capable of backing up that statement?

> much more incisive than Mario.
>
>
> <snip more pontifications>
>
>
>
>>>>>> Among the genus *Homo* it
>>>>>> has been suggested that everything from *H. habilis* to *H.
>>>>>> floresiensis* be laced in *Homo erectus*, and there is evidence to
>>>>>> back this up, paper linked here:
>
> The smart money says that this paper only supports this last bit
> and is silent about the pontifications that I snipped.
>

The smart money says you're talking out of your ass again.

Wrong again. *Pan* falls outside of Hominini.

>
> You really should try to get clear on the distinction between
> Hominini (tribe) and Hominina (subtribe).
>

So should you. When was the last time you even looked at the difference?
And the two terms are pretty much interchangeable.

>
>> while Neanderthals and
>> Denisovans are fully human, only barely outside of our own species.
>
> Don't you mean barely outside our subspecies?

Don't you mean barely outside our species?

>
>
>> While the DNA of gorillas and chimps are great for working out the
>> phylogeny of Homininae, when it comes to Hominini they fail, for they
>> fall outside of it.
>
> GIGO.

Polly want a cracker?

>
>
>> Neanderthals and Denisovans fall within Hominini,
>
> Also within Homo.

Here you go again, saying stuff that are agonizingly obvious and
expecting me to not know these things. What's wrong with you?

Most anthropologists would put them within Homo sapiens
> as well, AFAIK.
>

Except for the ones that don't, AFAIK.

>
>> but are so close to us
>> that their DNA only allows us to work out the relationship between our
>> three species, each descending from *Homo heidelbergensis* or *Homo
>> erectus*, the latter two we don't have *any* DNA for. The DNA of chimps
>> and orangs aren't going to tell us where *Kenyanthropus* falls inside
>> Hominini. I still don't see how you don't get this.
>
> I'll leave it to you two perennial trolls to work this one out
> between yourselves.

You barge in here, insulting me galore and referencing stuff that
doesn't have anything to do with sbp, act like a complete dick and
you're calling us the trolls. Yeah, okay, let's see if your standards
would hold up in a court of law. (They wouldn't, IMHO.)

[John Harshman]

Priority under the ICZN, don'tcha know?

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 11:50:04 AM UTC-4, Oxyaena wrote:
> On 10/9/2018 6:44 PM, Peter Nyikos lied about the following:
> > Oxyaena has been inadvertently revealing how crashingly
> > incompetent she is at systematics and dating, especially dating the
> > human-chimp split, on a thread where even JTEM and Mario can more
> > than hold their own against her.
>
>
> Complete and utter bullshit. Stop libeling me,

I am telling the truth, and now you seem to be hoping that Harshman
will come to your rescue on the thread where the post I linked
below appeared yesterday. But he has his hands full just trying
to explain how you are not as terrible a troll as JTEM from
his POV.

Meanwhile, JTEM has chimed in effectively about you, in
another post to the same thread:

_______________________ begin included post_________________

Oxyaena wrote:

> Like yourself? You don't have *any* academic qualifications in *any*
> field of biology or geology, boyo.

You're a rotating sock puppet who just posted
a long-ago refuted "Cite" claiming a divergence
date for humans & chimps WAY older than anything
agreed upon outside of an alzheimer's clinic.

Glass houses. Stones. You.



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/178894592968

======================= end of post archived at

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.bio.paleontology/dpR_mOvZ5Q4/LRuJnGJnBQAJ
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 13:00:52 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <f3a3baab-0946-4554...@googlegroups.com>

Subject: Re: The Big Splits In Hominidae

I think what JTEM meant was that "Oxyaena" and "Thrinax...on" are sock
puppets for a fraud who is afraid to give out any information about
him/herself. You have claimed to be married to a paleontologist, but
since he has kept off Usenet, it seems safe to infer that he is
even more incompetent at paleontology than yourself.

> I was the one who
> explained the difference Between Hominini and Homininae to Mario, NOT you.

Thanks for relieving me of the burden of explaining this no-brainer
to them. You sure know how to brag about things that any ten year
old with internet access could have posted to Usenet.

> >
> > The following post is one of many where this incompetence is
> > being laid bare as this thread here in talk.origins is unfolding:
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.bio.paleontology/dpR_mOvZ5Q4/EQqLIwBrBQAJ
> > Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 14:07:07 -0700 (PDT)
> > Message-ID: <37cd8b6f-9ffe-4035...@googlegroups.com>
> > Subject: Re: The Big Splits In Hominidae
> >
> >
> > Now, on to the post at hand.
>
> All of that is irrelevant to the post at hand,

... but is relevant to how much of a fraud you are. Did you
know that J.L.B. Smith, who taught himself FAR more biology
than you have ever learned, had NO degree in biology.
His doctorate was in chemistry, and he was on the chemistry
faculty at his university. Now look at your insufferably
elitist, sophomoric remark that JTEM skewered.

In case the name is unfamiliar to you, Smith is the one who
did a magnificent job of research on the only living coelacanth.

> and only showcases how
> much of an insult addict you really are.

As JTEM put it so well: "Glass houses. Stones. You."

The real insult addict now demonstrates her modus operandi with "dipshit":

> Because, dipshit, Hominina is the clade containing Hominini, not the
> other way around.

I doubt that you will dare to try and correct the entry in Wikipedia
that says the opposite:

The subfamily Homininae can be further subdivided into three branches:
the tribe Gorillini (gorillas), and the tribe Hominini with
subtribes Panina (chimpanzees) and Hominina (humans and
their extinct relatives)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homininae

I suggest you do a Google search before fraudulently accusing
me of hypocrisy for using Wikipedia. All the references I've seen
back up the information that Hominina is a subtribe of the
tribe Hominini.

Phylocode has not yet wreaked havoc with the way that endings
of names of taxa reveal their level. -inae, for instance,
still designates subfamilies.

Just curious: do you know anything about Phylocode that
would help you make sense of what I wrote about it?

> You really need to look for glass before accusing
> others of incompetence.

Glass houses. Stones. You.

> >>>>>> From these early pioneers of
> >>>>>> bipedality we get *Ardipithecus*, whom in turn *Australopithecus*
> >>>>>> probably arose from.
> >
> > Now THESE are undisputed Hominina.
>
> You mean *Hominini*, you dithering ignoramus.

You are so amusing when you demonstrate your talents
as an insult addict. Especially when you don't know
what the hell you are talking about.

> >
> >
> >>>>>> Here's where things get *extremely* tricky, for
> >
> > ... a rank amateur like yourself.
>
> Said the pot.

The irony is priceless.

> Or are you taking your
> > pontifications from the article you cite below? Have you
> > even taken a look at the article itself?

The answer to both questions, especially the second,
appears to be negative:

>
> Is it even physically possible for you to stop talking out of your ass?
> Everything I wrote was of my own volition, you narcissistic asshole.

Just as I thought. Your pontifications were like a chess player
with a USCF rating of 1300 trying to put together ideas from books
written by grandmasters, with the idea of taking the best from them
and improving on little bits here and there.


Remaining four-flushing by you deleted. If you think I've deleted
some valuable insights into paleoanthropology by you, feel
free to repost them.


Peter Nyikos
Professor, Department of Math. -- standard disclaimer --

[Oxyaena]

On 10/10/2018 12:46 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
[snip pontificating and personal attacks]

The real insult addict demonstrates his modus operandi by introducing
ill-founded rumors about my competence in order to undermine his
opponent's credibility.

>
>> Because, dipshit, Hominina is the clade containing Hominini, not the
>> other way around.
>
> I doubt that you will dare to try and correct the entry in Wikipedia
> that says the opposite:

You can cherry-pick anything that fits your asinine assertions. See below.

>
> The subfamily Homininae can be further subdivided into three branches:
> the tribe Gorillini (gorillas), and the tribe Hominini with
> subtribes Panina (chimpanzees) and Hominina (humans and
> their extinct relatives)
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homininae

You ignore the article on Hominini where it says that "as of 2018 there
is no consensus as to whether chimps belong in Hominini or not." You can
cherry-pick anything to support your asinine conclusions, just don't be
upset when others find something that contradict what you wrote.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominini

>
> I suggest you do a Google search before fraudulently accusing
> me of hypocrisy for using Wikipedia. All the references I've seen
> back up the information that Hominina is a subtribe of the
> tribe Hominini.

See above.

>
> Phylocode has not yet wreaked havoc with the way that endings
> of names of taxa reveal their level. -inae, for instance,
> still designates subfamilies.
>
> Just curious: do you know anything about Phylocode that
> would help you make sense of what I wrote about it?

Of course, Phylocode is an attempt at making a unified set of rules
regarding cladistic methodology, and is a welcome replacement to the
ICZN, which still follows the outdated system of Evolutionary
systematics possessing a basis in Linnaean taxonomy.

And I made sense of what you wrote even without any help from Phylocode,
since once again you libel me about my supposed "incompetence" in these
fields, and you know damn well that you're lying.

>
>
>> You really need to look for glass before accusing
>> others of incompetence.
>
> Glass houses. Stones. You.
>

Said the pot.

>
>>>>>>>> From these early pioneers of
>>>>>>>> bipedality we get *Ardipithecus*, whom in turn *Australopithecus*
>>>>>>>> probably arose from.
>>>
>>> Now THESE are undisputed Hominina.
>>
>> You mean *Hominini*, you dithering ignoramus.
>
> You are so amusing when you demonstrate your talents
> as an insult addict.

Said the pot.

Especially when you don't know
> what the hell you are talking about.

See above about cherry-picking data that supports your asinine conclusions.

>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>> Here's where things get *extremely* tricky, for
>>>
>>> ... a rank amateur like yourself.
>>
>> Said the pot.
>
> The irony is priceless.

Said the pot.

>
>
>> Or are you taking your
>>> pontifications from the article you cite below? Have you
>>> even taken a look at the article itself?
>
> The answer to both questions, especially the second,
> appears to be negative:

And you would know that how?

>
>>
>> Is it even physically possible for you to stop talking out of your ass?
>> Everything I wrote was of my own volition, you narcissistic asshole.
>
> Just as I thought. Your pontifications were like a chess player
> with a USCF rating of 1300 trying to put together ideas from books
> written by grandmasters, with the idea of taking the best from them
> and improving on little bits here and there.
>

And the purpose of this attempt at poisoning the well is?

>
> Remaining four-flushing by you deleted. If you think I've deleted
> some valuable insights into paleoanthropology by you, feel
> free to repost them.
>
>

I`m reposting them because you're a dishonest sack of shit who lies
about others in order to undermine their credibility, especially since I
asked several potent questions you have no honest answer to:

[Peter Nyikos]

Priority in what way? They had changed the definition of
Homininae, and were coining a word for a taxon that hadn't been
recognized before, weren't they?

I mean, what use was there for the name "Hominini" before they
decided to put Pan into Homininae?


By the way, it's nice to see that you've overcome your resentment
of the accurate word "commandeer" -- or did you simply not
read any further?

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Department of Math. -- standard disclaimer --

U. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/

[John Harshman]

Priority with regard to family group names means that the name of the
family should be based on the earliest described included genus. Hence a
group including Homo, Pan, Gorilla, etc. must be based on Homo.

> I mean, what use was there for the name "Hominini" before they
> decided to put Pan into Homininae?

None?

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 1:15:03 PM UTC-4, Oxyaena wrote:
> On 10/10/2018 12:46 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> [snip pontificating and personal attacks]

Both those actions were by you in the snipped text, not by me.
And you are only digging yourself in deeper below.

> [massive evidence showing how incompetent I, Oxyaena, am]

Fixed it for you.

> in order to undermine his opponent's credibility.

Your totally undeserved credibility, that is.

>
> >
> >> Because, dipshit, Hominina is the clade containing Hominini, not the
> >> other way around.
> >
> > I doubt that you will dare to try and correct the entry in Wikipedia
> > that says the opposite:
>
> You can cherry-pick anything that fits your asinine assertions. See below.

Truer words were never written -- about you. Keep reading.

> >
> > The subfamily Homininae can be further subdivided into three branches:
> > the tribe Gorillini (gorillas), and the tribe Hominini with
> > subtribes Panina (chimpanzees) and Hominina (humans and
> > their extinct relatives)
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homininae
>
> You ignore the article on Hominini where it says that "as of 2018 there
> is no consensus as to whether chimps belong in Hominini or not."

If that is true, then *a* *fortiori*, there is no consensus
as to whether chimps belong in Hominina.

But you are such a typical troll, you wave your hands over irrelevant
details so as to fool people even more ignorant of anthropology
than yourself [1] into thinking that they are relevant.

[1] By conservative estimate, that would be over 90% of the
talk.origins readership. You are quite savvy about the amount
of crap you can get away with here.

> You can
> cherry-pick anything to support your asinine conclusions, just don't be
> upset when others find something that contradict what you wrote.

Truer words were never written -- about you.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominini

You are so crashingly incompetent, the cladogram at the bottom
completely escaped your attention. It doesn't cut and paste well,
but here is what it does: it splits Hominini into Panina and
Australopithecines/Hominina. Then this splits further into
Australopithecus and Ardipithecus; and Australopithecus
splits into several species of its own, plus humans.

> > I suggest you do a Google search before fraudulently accusing
> > me of hypocrisy for using Wikipedia. All the references I've seen
> > back up the information that Hominina is a subtribe of the
> > tribe Hominini.
>
> See above.

In addition to the one irrelevant thing you cherry-picked,
and the cladogram, there is the description that precedes the cladogram,
confirming what I've written about it, and it also escaped the attention
of your Oxyaena persona.

The Oxyaena persona also overlooked the following, in the
very next paragraph after the one it cherry-picked from:

the proposal by Mann and Weiss (1996), which divides
Hominini into three subtribes, Panina (containing Pan),
Hominina ("homininans", containing Homo "humans"),
and Australopithecina (containing several extinct
"australopithecine" genera).[2]


The only question in my mind is whether YOU, the ventriloquist-analogue
behind the dummy-analogue "Oxyaena," actually overlooked these
things, or are only PRETENDING to have overlooked them in order
to make me waste my time, which could be better spent attacking
far more competent-looking trolls, such as "Dr. Dr." Kleinman.


I've left in the rest without comment, so people reading this can
get a better idea of what the ventriloquist-analogue is really
intending to do with his/her dummy-analogue "Oxyaena".

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Department of Math. -- standard disclaimer --

U. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/


>
> >

[Oxyaena]

More evidence that you're an insult addict. You're only adding insult to
injury by this point, Peter.

>
>> in order to undermine his opponent's credibility.
>
> Your totally undeserved credibility, that is.
>

Clarify how it is undeserved, and this is a tacit admission that you are
engaging in an unjustifiable campaign of character assassination against me.

>
>>
>>>
>>>> Because, dipshit, Hominina is the clade containing Hominini, not the
>>>> other way around.
>>>
>>> I doubt that you will dare to try and correct the entry in Wikipedia
>>> that says the opposite:
>>
>> You can cherry-pick anything that fits your asinine assertions. See below.
>
> Truer words were never written -- about you. Keep reading.
>

How does that relate to me?

>
>>>
>>> The subfamily Homininae can be further subdivided into three branches:
>>> the tribe Gorillini (gorillas), and the tribe Hominini with
>>> subtribes Panina (chimpanzees) and Hominina (humans and
>>> their extinct relatives)
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homininae
>>
>> You ignore the article on Hominini where it says that "as of 2018 there
>> is no consensus as to whether chimps belong in Hominini or not."
>
> If that is true, then *a* *fortiori*, there is no consensus
> as to whether chimps belong in Hominina.

Now you're getting it. See, you *can* comprehend at least some semblance
of basic anthropology!

>
> But you are such a typical troll, you wave your hands over irrelevant
> details so as to fool people even more ignorant of anthropology
> than yourself [1] into thinking that they are relevant.

And the purpose of this attempt at poisoning the well is?


>

> [1] By conservative estimate, that would be over 90% of the
> talk.origins readership. You are quite savvy about the amount
> of crap you can get away with here.
>

Versus how savvy you *think* you are, versus how savvy you *really* are,
that is, none, except for brain-dead fools like V to all too easily gang
up with you to troll, flame, and harass me.

>
>> You can
>> cherry-pick anything to support your asinine conclusions, just don't be
>> upset when others find something that contradict what you wrote.
>
> Truer words were never written -- about you.

"I know you are but what am I".

>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominini
>
> You are so crashingly incompetent, the cladogram at the bottom
> completely escaped your attention.

No it didn't, I saw that cladogram, but my usage of the article was only
to point out that you were cherry-picking.

It doesn't cut and paste well,
> but here is what it does: it splits Hominini into Panina and
> Australopithecines/Hominina. Then this splits further into
> Australopithecus and Ardipithecus; and Australopithecus
> splits into several species of its own, plus humans.

You don't think I have eyes? Because I clearly saw that cladogram.

>
>>> I suggest you do a Google search before fraudulently accusing
>>> me of hypocrisy for using Wikipedia. All the references I've seen
>>> back up the information that Hominina is a subtribe of the
>>> tribe Hominini.
>>
>> See above.
>
> In addition to the one irrelevant thing you cherry-picked,
> and the cladogram, there is the description that precedes the cladogram,
> confirming what I've written about it,

See above.

and it also escaped the attention
> of your Oxyaena persona.

No it didn't, as I wrote above.

>
> The Oxyaena persona also overlooked the following, in the
> very next paragraph after the one it cherry-picked from:
>
> the proposal by Mann and Weiss (1996), which divides
> Hominini into three subtribes, Panina (containing Pan),
> Hominina ("homininans", containing Homo "humans"),
> and Australopithecina (containing several extinct
> "australopithecine" genera).[2]
>
>
> The only question in my mind is whether YOU, the ventriloquist-analogue
> behind the dummy-analogue "Oxyaena," actually overlooked these
> things

So all of that pontificating above about me being so "crashingly
incompetent" as to not see the cladogram on the page was the typical
Nyikosian pontificating for the sake of pontificating? Dull surprise.

or are only PRETENDING to have overlooked them in order
> to make me waste my time, which could be better spent attacking

Your paranoia strikes again.

> far more competent-looking trolls, such as "Dr. Dr." Kleinman.
>
>

That's because I`m not a troll, dipshit.

> I've left in the rest without comment, so people reading this can
> get a better idea of what the ventriloquist-analogue is really
> intending to do with his/her dummy-analogue "Oxyaena".

I notice you never addressed my comments about the Phylocode, is it
because it's "above your pay-grade"?

[zencycle]

On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 11:50:04 AM UTC-4, Oxyaena wrote:
> On 10/9/2018 6:44 PM, Peter Nyikos lied about the following:
> >

> > Now THESE are undisputed Hominina.
>
> You mean *Hominini*, you dithering ignoramus.

DRINK!!!!!

[Peter Nyikos]

If anyone reading this thinks Oxyaena is NOT trolling all through
the following post, they [1] are invited to single out any
place where they believe Oxyaena has a valid point, and I will
respond to any such post.

[1] with the exception of Oxyaena, of course. I am done with "feeding
the troll". Oxyaena is behaving like the Black Knight of "Monty Python
and the Holy Grail," who taunted people by calling them weaklings unable
and afraid to fight him, after they cut off both his arms and both
his legs.

I walked out of that movie shortly after that scene, disgusted
with how ridiculously farfetched I thought that portrayal was. It didn't
take me more than a year of experience with talk.origins to find
out that there were quite a number of regulars here who were "Black Knights".

Peter Nyikos

[Tim Anderson]

Peter Nyikos:

"I walked out of that movie shortly after that scene, disgusted
with how ridiculously farfetched I thought that portrayal was."

This is Monty Python you are talking about.

I have trouble remembering any of their work that **wasn't** "ridiculously farfetched" - ridicule was the whole basis of their genre. Admittedly, it may not be to everyone's taste, but they made their point sufficiently well that everyone understood it and remembered the scene.

[John Harshman]

On 10/10/18 3:18 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> I walked out of that movie shortly after that scene, disgusted
> with how ridiculously farfetched I thought that portrayal was.

Now this is fascinating. *That* was the bit you thought was farfetched?
The idea of a king prancing along in front of a servant who was clapping
together two coconut shells wasn't farfetched? And you walked out
because a very silly comedy wasn't realistic enough for you? Many
through the years have claimed that you have no discernible sense of
humor, but this certainly is the best evidence so far.

You're acting just like Graham Chapman's stuffy British Army major.
"This sketch has become silly!"

[jillery]

uOn Wed, 10 Oct 2018 15:18:01 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>If anyone reading this thinks Oxyaena is NOT trolling all through
>the following post, they [1] are invited to single out any
>place where they believe Oxyaena has a valid point, and I will
>respond to any such post.

Of course, trolling the troll is a rational response.

>[1] with the exception of Oxyaena, of course. I am done with "feeding
>the troll". Oxyaena is behaving like the Black Knight of "Monty Python
>and the Holy Grail," who taunted people by calling them weaklings unable
>and afraid to fight him, after they cut off both his arms and both
>his legs.

Mote, beam, eye. Just sayin'.

>I walked out of that movie shortly after that scene, disgusted
>with how ridiculously farfetched I thought that portrayal was. It didn't
>take me more than a year of experience with talk.origins to find
>out that there were quite a number of regulars here who were "Black Knights".

My impression is you are frustrated that MP mocked one of your
favorite tactics. This is no surprise, considering how often you jump
into a thread "unarmed".


<major snippage>

>> > I've left in the rest without comment, so people reading this can
>> > get a better idea of what the ventriloquist-analogue is really
>> > intending to do with his/her dummy-analogue "Oxyaena".
>>
>> I notice you never addressed my comments about the Phylocode, is it
>> because it's "above your pay-grade"?

The above and following illustrates who is trolling whom in this
thread.

>> > Peter Nyikos
>> > Professor, Department of Math. -- standard disclaimer --
>> > U. of South Carolina at Columbia
>> > http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> Phylocode has not yet wreaked havoc with the way that endings
>> >>> of names of taxa reveal their level. -inae, for instance,
>> >>> still designates subfamilies.
>> >>>
>> >>> Just curious: do you know anything about Phylocode that
>> >>> would help you make sense of what I wrote about it?
>> >>
>> >> Of course, Phylocode is an attempt at making a unified set of rules
>> >> regarding cladistic methodology, and is a welcome replacement to the
>> >> ICZN, which still follows the outdated system of Evolutionary
>> >> systematics possessing a basis in Linnaean taxonomy.
>> >>
>> >> And I made sense of what you wrote even without any help from Phylocode,
>> >> since once again you libel me about my supposed "incompetence" in these
>> >> fields, and you know damn well that you're lying.

--
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[Oxyaena]

On 10/10/2018 6:18 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

> I walked out of that movie shortly after that scene, disgusted
> with how ridiculously farfetched I thought that portrayal was. It didn't
> take me more than a year of experience with talk.origins to find
> out that there were quite a number of regulars here who were "Black Knights".
>

You realize that *Monty Python* were a group of parodists, right? The
whole thing was meant to be humorous. Harshman's claim that you have no
sense of humor is starting to make sense now, because you have not only
this but your problems with my humorous spoofed emails.

[jillery]

Keep in mind that Nyikos the peter is comedically challenged. He
takes umbrage with the most obvious puns. He is T.O.'s version of
Major Frank Burns.

[Oxyaena]

On 10/11/2018 1:14 AM, jillery wrote:
> uOn Wed, 10 Oct 2018 15:18:01 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>> If anyone reading this thinks Oxyaena is NOT trolling all through
>> the following post, they [1] are invited to single out any
>> place where they believe Oxyaena has a valid point, and I will
>> respond to any such post.
>
>
> Of course, trolling the troll is a rational response.
>

Entirely, trolls love to piss on other people, but when the victims
start pissing back they suddenly freak out and claim that *they're* the
victim.

>
>> [1] with the exception of Oxyaena, of course. I am done with "feeding
>> the troll". Oxyaena is behaving like the Black Knight of "Monty Python
>> and the Holy Grail," who taunted people by calling them weaklings unable
>> and afraid to fight him, after they cut off both his arms and both
>> his legs.
>
>
> Mote, beam, eye. Just sayin'.
>
>
>> I walked out of that movie shortly after that scene, disgusted
>> with how ridiculously farfetched I thought that portrayal was. It didn't
>> take me more than a year of experience with talk.origins to find
>> out that there were quite a number of regulars here who were "Black Knights".
>
>
> My impression is you are frustrated that MP mocked one of your
> favorite tactics. This is no surprise, considering how often you jump
> into a thread "unarmed".
>

Nyikos has almost no sense of humor. Just look at his reactions and
subsequent wild conspiracy theories about my spoofed emails for an example.

[Tim Anderson]

Peter appears to be the Holy Hand Grenade of British comedy.

[Wolffan]

On 11 Oct 2018, Oxyaena wrote
(in article <ppmmjt$eqn$1...@news.albasani.net>):

> Nyikos has almost no sense of humor.

Petey der Gross has no detectable sense of humor. Because of this he is often
very funny, entirely unintentionally. And he gets funnier when people point
and laugh.

> Just look at his reactions and
> subsequent wild conspiracy theories about my spoofed emails for an example.

He loves conspiracy stories, the sillier the better.

[Oxyaena]

On 10/10/2018 6:18 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

> If anyone reading this thinks Oxyaena is NOT trolling all through
> the following post, they [1] are invited to single out any
> place where they believe Oxyaena has a valid point, and I will
> respond to any such post.
>
> [1] with the exception of Oxyaena, of course. I am done with "feeding
> the troll".

You're the one who responded with a post bragging about my supposed
"incompetence" and then proceeded to reply with nothing but insults.
Classic troll behavior, when the trolls get trolled they bail, crying foul.

Oxyaena is behaving like the Black Knight of "Monty Python
> and the Holy Grail," who taunted people by calling them weaklings unable
> and afraid to fight him, after they cut off both his arms and both
> his legs.

Pot kettle black.

>
> I walked out of that movie shortly after that scene, disgusted
> with how ridiculously farfetched I thought that portrayal was. It didn't
> take me more than a year of experience with talk.origins to find
> out that there were quite a number of regulars here who were "Black Knights".

The fact that you were disgusted with a work of parody shows your lack
of humor. You're like the Squidward Tentacles of Usenet.

[crickets]

>>
>>
>>>
>>>> in order to undermine his opponent's credibility.
>>>
>>> Your totally undeserved credibility, that is.
>>>
>>
>> Clarify how it is undeserved, and this is a tacit admission that you are
>> engaging in an unjustifiable campaign of character assassination against me.

[crickets]

>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Because, dipshit, Hominina is the clade containing Hominini, not the
>>>>>> other way around.
>>>>>
>>>>> I doubt that you will dare to try and correct the entry in Wikipedia
>>>>> that says the opposite:
>>>>
>>>> You can cherry-pick anything that fits your asinine assertions. See below.
>>>
>>> Truer words were never written -- about you. Keep reading.
>>>
>>
>> How does that relate to me?
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The subfamily Homininae can be further subdivided into three branches:
>>>>> the tribe Gorillini (gorillas), and the tribe Hominini with
>>>>> subtribes Panina (chimpanzees) and Hominina (humans and
>>>>> their extinct relatives)
>>>>>
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homininae
>>>>
>>>> You ignore the article on Hominini where it says that "as of 2018 there
>>>> is no consensus as to whether chimps belong in Hominini or not."
>>>
>>> If that is true, then *a* *fortiori*, there is no consensus
>>> as to whether chimps belong in Hominina.
>>
>>
>> Now you're getting it. See, you *can* comprehend at least some semblance
>> of basic anthropology!
>>
>>>
>>> But you are such a typical troll, you wave your hands over irrelevant
>>> details so as to fool people even more ignorant of anthropology
>>> than yourself [1] into thinking that they are relevant.
>>
>>
>> And the purpose of this attempt at poisoning the well is?
>>
>>

[crickets]

>>>
>>> [1] By conservative estimate, that would be over 90% of the
>>> talk.origins readership. You are quite savvy about the amount
>>> of crap you can get away with here.
>>>
>>
>> Versus how savvy you *think* you are, versus how savvy you *really* are,
>> that is, none, except for brain-dead fools like V to all too easily gang
>> up with you to troll, flame, and harass me.

[crickets]

>>
>>>
>>>> You can
>>>> cherry-pick anything to support your asinine conclusions, just don't be
>>>> upset when others find something that contradict what you wrote.
>>>
>>> Truer words were never written -- about you.
>>
>> "I know you are but what am I".
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominini
>>>
>>> You are so crashingly incompetent, the cladogram at the bottom
>>> completely escaped your attention.
>>
>> No it didn't, I saw that cladogram, but my usage of the article was only
>> to point out that you were cherry-picking.

[crickets]

>>
>> It doesn't cut and paste well,
>>> but here is what it does: it splits Hominini into Panina and
>>> Australopithecines/Hominina. Then this splits further into
>>> Australopithecus and Ardipithecus; and Australopithecus
>>> splits into several species of its own, plus humans.
>>
>> You don't think I have eyes? Because I clearly saw that cladogram.

[crickets]

[crickets]

>>
>>
>>
>> or are only PRETENDING to have overlooked them in order
>>> to make me waste my time, which could be better spent attacking
>>
>> Your paranoia strikes again.
>>
>>
>>> far more competent-looking trolls, such as "Dr. Dr." Kleinman.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> That's because I`m not a troll, dipshit.
>>
>>
>>> I've left in the rest without comment, so people reading this can
>>> get a better idea of what the ventriloquist-analogue is really
>>> intending to do with his/her dummy-analogue "Oxyaena".
>>
>> I notice you never addressed my comments about the Phylocode, is it
>> because it's "above your pay-grade"?

[crickets]

Chickenshit runs away again.

[Oxyaena]

On 10/11/2018 1:48 AM, Tim Anderson wrote:
> Peter appears to be the Holy Hand Grenade of British comedy.
>

The Monty Python skit that Peter's behavior reminds me of is this:

"He so bravely ran away away. Like the hero he was he ran away."

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 19:47:55 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Tim Anderson
<timoth...@gmail.com>:

Ah, but *you* have a sense of humor. I wonder what he
thought of the "Inquisition" skit...?
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 22:48:14 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Tim Anderson
<timoth...@gmail.com>:

>Peter appears to be the Holy Hand Grenade of British comedy.

Cue Dorothy:

"Anti Och! Anti Och!"

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2018 01:17:28 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 19:47:55 -0700 (PDT), Tim Anderson
><timoth...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Peter Nyikos:
>>
>>"I walked out of that movie shortly after that scene, disgusted
>>with how ridiculously farfetched I thought that portrayal was."
>>
>>This is Monty Python you are talking about.
>>
>>I have trouble remembering any of their work that **wasn't** "ridiculously farfetched" - ridicule was the whole basis of their genre. Admittedly, it may not be to everyone's taste, but they made their point sufficiently well that everyone understood it and remembered the scene.
>
>
>Keep in mind that Nyikos the peter is comedically challenged. He
>takes umbrage with the most obvious puns. He is T.O.'s version of
>Major Frank Burns.

....with no Houlihan.

[zencycle]

On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 6:20:04 PM UTC-4, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
> the Black Knight of "Monty Python
> and the Holy Grail," who taunted people by calling them weaklings unable
> and afraid to fight him, after they cut off both his arms and both
> his legs.
>
> I walked out of that movie shortly after that scene, disgusted
> with how ridiculously farfetched I thought that portrayal was.

<facepalm>

[Oxyaena]

They already had a taxon named *Hominidae*, therefore the priority under
taxonomic nomenclature was to name the subfamily *Homininae* after
*Homo*. Are you really that breathtakingly incompetent of basic
taxonomic rules?


[snip stupidity]

[John Harshman]

That isn't the rule. According to the ICZN you have to name a taxon
after the first-described included genus, which name belongs to the type
species of the genus, which belongs to the type specimen. So any
family-group name should be traceable back to the type specimen of its
first-described genus. For any family-group name including Homo sapiens,
that would be Homo, and thus the name must be based on Homo. Under the
ICZN, humans cannot belong to Pongidae.

[Oxyaena]

Which was essentially my point.

[John Harshman]

Then, once again, you fail to state your point, but state another quite
different and erroneous one. Clarity is very important to me, and I hope
it might be to you also.

[Mark Isaak]

The Great Courses has a lecture series on "King Arthur: History and
Legend". The professor names "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" as the
foremost Arthurian movie she recommends.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Omnia disce. Videbis postea nihil esse superfluum."
- Hugh of St. Victor

[Oxyaena]

Then you and I have a difference in opinion. As I have explained before
to you, I don't believe that everything needs to be precisely stated and
unambiguous in order to get my point across. I will clarify if
clarification is requested, however.

[John Harshman]

Yes, we do have a considerable difference of opinion on this. Measure
twice, cut once.

[Oxyaena]

On 10/11/2018 9:29 AM, Wolffan wrote:
> On 11 Oct 2018, Oxyaena wrote
> (in article <ppmmjt$eqn$1...@news.albasani.net>):
>
>> Nyikos has almost no sense of humor.
>
> Petey der Gross has no detectable sense of humor. Because of this he is often
> very funny, entirely unintentionally. And he gets funnier when people point
> and laugh.

Point, the shit he writes is often so outrageous it crosses the line twice.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 10:50:02 PM UTC-4, Tim Anderson wrote:
> Peter Nyikos:
>
> "I walked out of that movie shortly after that scene, disgusted
> with how ridiculously farfetched I thought that portrayal was."
>
> This is Monty Python you are talking about.
>
> I have trouble remembering any of their work that **wasn't** "ridiculously farfetched"

Evidently you missed a wonderful scene in "Life of Brian" where
a Zealot starts out talking about how the Romans had laid so
many burdens on them, "and what have they done in return?"

Voice in audience: They provided us with a good sewer system.

Zealot: OK, granted, they did that. But apart from that, what
have they done for us...

Another person interrupted before the Zealot could deliver the
punch line "Nothing." naming another good thing the Romans
had done.

This went on for several more rounds, until the audience
couldn't think of other good things fast enough, allowing
the Zealot to finally get to his now-much-diluted conclusion:

All right, but apart from the sewer system, and __________,
and _________, and _______________, what have the Romans
done for us? Nothing!

All the above was close paraphrase from memory. I'm not sure
whether I got the number of ________ right, but it has a familiar
"ring" to it.

> - ridicule was the whole basis of their genre.

Yes, but some of it was quite intelligently done, as above,
and some of it was pure farce.

> Admittedly, it may not be to everyone's taste, but they made their point sufficiently well that everyone understood it and remembered the scene.

I was completely unable to understand the Black Knight scene, because
I had been fortunate enough not to ever encounter anyone remotely
like "Black Knight" Oxyaena before I saw that film at the age of ca. 23.

However, I encountered several of them within a year of posting
to talk.abortion, and also within my first year here in talk.origins.
By the time I joined talk.origins in 1995, I had identified
no less than 16 who matched the description below, and in October of
that year, I added a 17th whose surname, appropriately enough, was McKnight.

THE BLACK KNIGHTS

Black Knights are people who, when faced with clear evidence of having
issued falsehoods or self-contradiction, will plow right ahead, issuing
streams of taunts designed to make people believe that THEY have won the
argument, and, in many instances, not even bother to try to show that they
did NOT lose the argument.


Now that Hemidactylus has stopped jeering at what he calls my "lists"
I might revive that Black Knight category, so that people may see who has joined
the "lists" [in another sense of the word] of Black Knights.
Oxyaena eminently qualifies, as does Oxyaena's staunch ally jillery,
who swooped down on your post like a vulture yesterday.

And there are some creationists who also fit into the Black Knight
category, especially Ray Martinez, as well as someone who generally
behaves like a creationist, Dr. Dr. Alan Kleinman.


Peter Nyikos

[Oxyaena]

I think this scene/quote from Monty Python suits you well:

"He so bravely ran away! Like the hero he was he ran away!"

>
>> - ridicule was the whole basis of their genre.
>
> Yes, but some of it was quite intelligently done, as above,
> and some of it was pure farce.
>
>
>> Admittedly, it may not be to everyone's taste, but they made their point sufficiently well that everyone understood it and remembered the scene.
>
> I was completely unable to understand the Black Knight scene, because
> I had been fortunate enough not to ever encounter anyone remotely
> like "Black Knight" Oxyaena before I saw that film at the age of ca. 23.

You mean yourself? I`m not a "Black Knight", I`m more like the
Cloudcuckoolander's (meaning "you") Minder.

>
> However, I encountered several of them within a year of posting
> to talk.abortion, and also within my first year here in talk.origins.
> By the time I joined talk.origins in 1995, I had identified
> no less than 16 who matched the description below, and in October of
> that year, I added a 17th whose surname, appropriately enough, was McKnight.
>
> THE BLACK KNIGHTS
>
> Black Knights are people who, when faced with clear evidence of having
> issued falsehoods or self-contradiction, will plow right ahead, issuing
> streams of taunts designed to make people believe that THEY have won the
> argument, and, in many instances, not even bother to try to show that they
> did NOT lose the argument.
>

You're projecting *really* hard right now. All that heat from the mirror
in front of you must be scorching you intensely.

>
> Now that Hemidactylus has stopped jeering at what he calls my "lists"
> I might revive that Black Knight category, so that people may see who has joined
> the "lists" [in another sense of the word]

Do you honestly think anyone other than yourself wants to see this list?

of Black Knights.
> Oxyaena eminently qualifies, as does Oxyaena's staunch ally jillery,
> who swooped down on your post like a vulture yesterday.
>

"Mirror, mirror, on the wall..." You swept like a vulture on my post a
couple of day's ago, hypocrite.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 11:05:02 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 10/10/18 3:18 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > I walked out of that movie shortly after that scene, disgusted
> > with how ridiculously farfetched I thought that portrayal was.
>
> Now this is fascinating.

Only because it reveals just how oblivious I was of the existence of
people like yourself, and especially Oxyaena, before I encountered Usenet.

>*That* was the bit you thought was farfetched?

Yup, because it did not relate to anything I had ever
experienced before, unlike the following:

> The idea of a king prancing along in front of a servant who was clapping
> together two coconut shells wasn't farfetched?

Standard radio sound effects. Are you out of touch with
the reality of entertainment before TV supplanted radio?

As for the prancing king, that was what someone who had
worked extensively with sound effects might have pictured
for himself for amusement when listening to a radio rendition of some
analogue of hoofbeats in a King Arthur story.

>And you walked out
> because a very silly comedy wasn't realistic enough for you?

I take it from your wording that Black Knight style bluffers
were an everyday occurrence for you. That would go far towards
explaining why you keep deleting damning evidence of dishonesty
and hypocrisy by yourself.

Is it because you are amused by the way I am not "getting it"
as far as your talk.origins role-playing goes?

I have in mind role-playing as when a morally upstanding person
plays the villain in some theatre production, or in a role-playing
game like "Dungeons and Dragons".

>Many
> through the years have claimed that you have no discernible sense of
> humor,

That was, I believe, when I took umbrage at mean-spirited humor.
But whenever I used satirical humor, it became clear that
you have no sense of humor when the joke is on YOU.

> but this certainly is the best evidence so far.

I suspect you've been trolling all through this post,
but this is the best evidence so far. But the following may top it:

> You're acting just like Graham Chapman's stuffy British Army major.
> "This sketch has become silly!"

By the way, I walked out on less than a dozen films in my life,
while staying on in many wretched ones in the hope that they would get better.

Perhaps the most widely acclaimed one I walked out on was "Cabaret."
There is something very wrong with a film where the only character
with any sense of direction is a Hitler Jugend singing,
"The Future Belongs to Me."

Lots of Nazis and Communists thought and still think in the
same way; tragically mistaken, but still having a sense
of direction.

A sense of direction is something that you are increasingly losing
in sci.bio.paleontology now that Richard Norman is gone.


HAND.


Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 12:51:26 -0400, Oxyaena <i....@error.invalid>
wrote:

>On 10/12/2018 12:29 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

[...]

>> I was completely unable to understand the Black Knight scene, because
>> I had been fortunate enough not to ever encounter anyone remotely
>> like "Black Knight" Oxyaena before I saw that film at the age of ca. 23.
>
>You mean yourself? I`m not a "Black Knight", I`m more like the
>Cloudcuckoolander's (meaning "you") Minder.

It should surprise no one but Nyikos the peter that he doesn't get the
point of the Black Knight scene, or that he doesn't recognize himself
in it.

Since raising MP allusions is on-topic, my impression is an even
better comparison for him would be the Knights who say Ni!, as their
arguments are utterly pointless.

>> However, I encountered several of them within a year of posting
>> to talk.abortion, and also within my first year here in talk.origins.
>> By the time I joined talk.origins in 1995, I had identified
>> no less than 16 who matched the description below, and in October of
>> that year, I added a 17th whose surname, appropriately enough, was McKnight.
>>
>> THE BLACK KNIGHTS
>>
>> Black Knights are people who, when faced with clear evidence of having
>> issued falsehoods or self-contradiction, will plow right ahead, issuing
>> streams of taunts designed to make people believe that THEY have won the
>> argument, and, in many instances, not even bother to try to show that they
>> did NOT lose the argument.
>>
>
>
>You're projecting *really* hard right now. All that heat from the mirror
>in front of you must be scorching you intensely.

Leave it to Nyikos the peter to make a list based on a skit he admits
he has no idea what it means. Is anybody surprised.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2018 12:29:58 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by zencycle
<funkma...@hotmail.com>:

Yep.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2018 14:23:10 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<eciton@curiousta/xyz/xonomy.net>:

>On 10/10/18 8:02 PM, John Harshman wrote:

>> On 10/10/18 3:18 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

[Re; the Black Knight scene]

>>> I walked out of that movie shortly after that scene, disgusted
>>> with how ridiculously farfetched I thought that portrayal was.

>> Now this is fascinating. *That* was the bit you thought was farfetched?
>> The idea of a king prancing along in front of a servant who was clapping
>> together two coconut shells wasn't farfetched? And you walked out
>> because a very silly comedy wasn't realistic enough for you? Many
>> through the years have claimed that you have no discernible sense of
>> humor, but this certainly is the best evidence so far.
>>
>> You're acting just like Graham Chapman's stuffy British Army major.
>> "This sketch has become silly!"

>The Great Courses has a lecture series on "King Arthur: History and
>Legend". The professor names "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" as the
>foremost Arthurian movie she recommends.

I hope she makes clear that it's a parody. If Peter took the
course he'd be sure it was an actual "portrayal".

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2018 16:10:25 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net>:

I thought it was "Measure once, cut twice, give the tape
measure a bad performance review".

(With apologies to Scott Adams.)

[Oxyaena]

On 10/12/2018 2:27 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 11:05:02 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 10/10/18 3:18 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> I walked out of that movie shortly after that scene, disgusted
>>> with how ridiculously farfetched I thought that portrayal was.
>>
>> Now this is fascinating.
>
> Only because it reveals just how oblivious I was of the existence of
> people like yourself, and especially Oxyaena, before I encountered Usenet.
>

"Mirror, mirror, on the wall..."


>

>> *That* was the bit you thought was farfetched?
>
> Yup, because it did not relate to anything I had ever
> experienced before, unlike the following:

Then you obviously have zero sense of humor.

>
>> The idea of a king prancing along in front of a servant who was clapping
>> together two coconut shells wasn't farfetched?
>
> Standard radio sound effects. Are you out of touch with
> the reality of entertainment before TV supplanted radio?

Are you out of touch with the fact that TV has long since supplanted
radio as the dominant form of entertainment (until the Internet and
video games came along, anyways).

>
> As for the prancing king, that was what someone who had
> worked extensively with sound effects might have pictured
> for himself for amusement when listening to a radio rendition of some
> analogue of hoofbeats in a King Arthur story.
>
>

"Back in the good old days we used to lynch evil black people for
whatever reason, sometimes not at all. Damn you, political correctness!"

The same logical fallacy applies to what you've just written.

>> And you walked out
>> because a very silly comedy wasn't realistic enough for you?
>
> I take it from your wording that Black Knight style bluffers
> were an everyday occurrence for you. That would go far towards
> explaining why you keep deleting damning evidence of dishonesty
> and hypocrisy by yourself.
>

"Mirror, mirror, on the wall..."

[snip irrelevant and off-topic bullshit]

>
>> Many
>> through the years have claimed that you have no discernible sense of
>> humor,
>
> That was, I believe, when I took umbrage at mean-spirited humor.
> But whenever I used satirical humor,

Read: "Mean-spirited humor, but done by me, Peter Nyikos, so it doesn't
qualify as such."

it became clear that
> you have no sense of humor when the joke is on YOU.
>

Pot kettle black.

>
>> but this certainly is the best evidence so far.
>
> I suspect you've been trolling all through this post,
> but this is the best evidence so far. But the following may top it:
>
>> You're acting just like Graham Chapman's stuffy British Army major.

[snip irrelevant nostalgia trip]

> A sense of direction is something that you are increasingly losing
> in sci.bio.paleontology now that Richard Norman is gone.

Says the guy who incessantly flames me, day in and day out, on BOTH
newsgroups.

>
>
> HAND.
>
>
> Peter Nyikos
>

[John Harshman]

You really are only digging deeper with all that, you know.

[Oxyaena]

On 10/12/2018 2:27 PM, jillery wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 12:51:26 -0400, Oxyaena <i....@error.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> On 10/12/2018 12:29 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>> I was completely unable to understand the Black Knight scene, because
>>> I had been fortunate enough not to ever encounter anyone remotely
>>> like "Black Knight" Oxyaena before I saw that film at the age of ca. 23.
>>
>> You mean yourself? I`m not a "Black Knight", I`m more like the
>> Cloudcuckoolander's (meaning "you") Minder.
>
>
> It should surprise no one but Nyikos the peter that he doesn't get the
> point of the Black Knight scene, or that he doesn't recognize himself
> in it.
>
> Since raising MP allusions is on-topic, my impression is an even
> better comparison for him would be the Knights who say Ni!, as their
> arguments are utterly pointless.
>
>

"He so bravely ran away away, like the hero he was he ran away." Equally
as fitting for Nyikos, complete with both cowardice and a hero complex.

>>> However, I encountered several of them within a year of posting
>>> to talk.abortion, and also within my first year here in talk.origins.
>>> By the time I joined talk.origins in 1995, I had identified
>>> no less than 16 who matched the description below, and in October of
>>> that year, I added a 17th whose surname, appropriately enough, was McKnight.
>>>
>>> THE BLACK KNIGHTS
>>>
>>> Black Knights are people who, when faced with clear evidence of having
>>> issued falsehoods or self-contradiction, will plow right ahead, issuing
>>> streams of taunts designed to make people believe that THEY have won the
>>> argument, and, in many instances, not even bother to try to show that they
>>> did NOT lose the argument.
>>>
>>
>>
>> You're projecting *really* hard right now. All that heat from the mirror
>> in front of you must be scorching you intensely.
>
>
> Leave it to Nyikos the peter to make a list based on a skit he admits
> he has no idea what it means. Is anybody surprised.
>
>

About as surprised as I am at the fact that the sky is blue.

[John Harshman]

On 10/12/18 11:27 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

"Now, nobody likes a good laugh more than I do, except perhaps my wife
and some of her friends. Oh yes, and Captain Johnson. Come to think of
it, most people like a good laugh more than I do, but that's beside the
point. Now, let's have a good, clean, healthy outdoor sketch. Get some
air into your lungs. Ten, nine, eight and all that..."

[Oxyaena]

Completely.

[zencycle]

Dangerously close to Godwin, that....

[Peter Nyikos]

Unable to refute any of the above, you resort to
a lame parody of "people who have a sense of humor
don't need to advertise it". [1]

> You really are only digging deeper with all that, you know.

You really are progressing towards Black Knight candidacy,
and you should know it.

[1] Trouble is, that half-truth applies to you as much as it
does to me. You are implicitly advertising a sense of
humor so magnificently superlative that there is supposedly no need
to refute ANYTHING I wrote above, even things having
absolutely nothing to do with having a sense of humor.


But back to the actual CONTENT of Black Knight behavior,
which you haven't really addressed at all.

As I told Tim Anderson:

I was completely unable to understand the Black Knight scene, because
I had been fortunate enough not to ever encounter anyone remotely
like "Black Knight" Oxyaena before I saw that film at the age of ca. 23.

However, I encountered several of them within a year of posting
to talk.abortion, and also within my first year here in talk.origins.
By the time I joined talk.origins in 1995, I had identified
no less than 16 who matched the description below, and in October of
that year, I added a 17th whose surname, appropriately enough, was McKnight.

THE BLACK KNIGHTS

Black Knights are people who, when faced with clear evidence of having
issued falsehoods or self-contradiction, will plow right ahead, issuing
streams of taunts designed to make people believe that THEY have won the
argument, and, in many instances, not even bother to try to show that they
did NOT lose the argument.

I also had a subsidiary category: Black Squire. These are people
who, when a Black Knight is faced with clear evidence of the above,
will issue streams of taunts (as defined above) instead of the
Black Knight, who sits there preening him/herself all the time
the stream of taunts is progressing in service of him/herself.

There are quite a few posters to talk.origins who slip
comfortably from a Black Knight role to a Black Squire role,
and back again. Two of the most accomplished such blackguards
are jillery and Bob Casanova, both of them staunch allies
of Oxyaena, and of each other.


Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

In the category of channeling "Springtime For Hitler".

>Perhaps the most widely acclaimed one I walked out on was "Cabaret."
>There is something very wrong with a film where the only character
>with any sense of direction is a Hitler Jugend singing,
>"The Future Belongs to Me."

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, October 12, 2018 at 3:15:03 PM UTC-4, Oxyaena wrote:
> On 10/12/2018 2:27 PM, jillery wrote:
> > On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 12:51:26 -0400, Oxyaena <i....@error.invalid>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 10/12/2018 12:29 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

> >>> However, I encountered several of them within a year of posting
> >>> to talk.abortion, and also within my first year here in talk.origins.
> >>> By the time I joined talk.origins in 1995, I had identified
> >>> no less than 16 who matched the description below, and in October of
> >>> that year, I added a 17th whose surname, appropriately enough, was McKnight.
> >>>
> >>> THE BLACK KNIGHTS
> >>>
> >>> Black Knights are people who, when faced with clear evidence of having
> >>> issued falsehoods or self-contradiction, will plow right ahead, issuing
> >>> streams of taunts designed to make people believe that THEY have won the
> >>> argument, and, in many instances, not even bother to try to show that they
> >>> did NOT lose the argument.
> >>>
> >>
> >>

<snip Pee Wee Hermanism by Oxyaena>

> > Leave it to Nyikos the peter to make a list based on a skit he admits
> > he has no idea what it means.

Black Squire usage of "has" instead of the honest "had" by
jillery, in service of Black Knight Oxyaena, noted.

> > Is anybody surprised.
> >
> >
>
> About as surprised as I am at the fact that the sky is blue.

This from a troll who did a "damsel in distress"
spiel when 'e wrote that 'e "hated flamewars". The
only thing you hate about flamewars is that your gleefully
posted flames frequently boomerang on you.

As they have on this thread with your adolescent-level OP
degenerating into a complete fiasco by you wrt Hominini-Hominina.

You showed what a complete troll you were once you could
no longer maintain your aggressively promoted paleontological
howler, when zencycle so beautifully skewered you in the
following post:

______________________ begin included post_____________________
On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 11:50:04 AM UTC-4, Oxyaena wrote:
> On 10/9/2018 6:44 PM, Peter Nyikos lied about the following:
> >
> > Now THESE are undisputed Hominina.
>
> You mean *Hominini*, you dithering ignoramus.

DRINK!!!!!
========================================================


https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/r5d2SywN8Uo/dhW8y0T3AQAJ
Subject: Re: The conundrum of hominin phylogeny
Lines: 9
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 12:07:39 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <54bd3b6e-0e18-478d...@googlegroups.com>

Right on this thread, note! And note also how you have
not had the guts to reply to this incriminating post.
But you did do a 489 line post trying to rewrite Usenet history
in the wake of zencycle's post.

Finally, note how well zencycle exemplified the adage, "Brevity
is the soul of wit."


Peter Nyikos
Professor, Department of Math. -- standard disclaimer --
U. of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/

[jillery]

On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 14:01:36 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> continued to ejaculate his repetitive
irrelevant spew from his puckered sphincter:

>On Friday, October 12, 2018 at 3:15:03 PM UTC-4, Oxyaena wrote:
>> On 10/12/2018 2:27 PM, jillery wrote:
>> > On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 12:51:26 -0400, Oxyaena <i....@error.invalid>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 10/12/2018 12:29 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
>> >>> However, I encountered several of them within a year of posting
>> >>> to talk.abortion, and also within my first year here in talk.origins.
>> >>> By the time I joined talk.origins in 1995, I had identified
>> >>> no less than 16 who matched the description below, and in October of
>> >>> that year, I added a 17th whose surname, appropriately enough, was McKnight.
>> >>>
>> >>> THE BLACK KNIGHTS
>> >>>
>> >>> Black Knights are people who, when faced with clear evidence of having
>> >>> issued falsehoods or self-contradiction, will plow right ahead, issuing
>> >>> streams of taunts designed to make people believe that THEY have won the
>> >>> argument, and, in many instances, not even bother to try to show that they
>> >>> did NOT lose the argument.

<snip Pee Wee Hermanism by Nyikos the peter>

>> > Leave it to Nyikos the peter to make a list based on a skit he admits
>> > he has no idea what it means.
>
>Black Squire usage of "has" instead of the honest "had" by
>jillery, in service of Black Knight Oxyaena, noted.

Leave it to Nyikos the peter to define a label which describes his
posts to a "T".

Is anybody surprised.

[Oxyaena]

On 10/12/2018 5:01 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
[snip mindless bullshit]

when zencycle so beautifully skewered you in the
> following post:

Then he responded directly to *you*, stating his remark was directed
towards *you*, dipshit. Who do you think you're fooling with these lies
of yours?

[John Harshman]

I think I can see China!

[Oxyaena]

I can see my house from here!

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 12:13:01 -0700, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net>:

The problem is that he *doesn't* know.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 17:26:08 -0700, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net>:

He digs with a list...

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 16:20:34 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>In the category of channeling "Springtime For Hitler".

>>Perhaps the most widely acclaimed one I walked out on was "Cabaret."
>>There is something very wrong with a film where the only character
>>with any sense of direction is a Hitler Jugend singing,
>>"The Future Belongs to Me."

Next up: "Hitler on Ice"!

[Oxyaena]

Must be pretty hard to dig, then.

[Oxyaena]

On 10/13/2018 2:00 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 16:20:34 -0400, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>
>> In the category of channeling "Springtime For Hitler".
>
>>> Perhaps the most widely acclaimed one I walked out on was "Cabaret."
>>> There is something very wrong with a film where the only character
>>> with any sense of direction is a Hitler Jugend singing,
>>> "The Future Belongs to Me."
>
> Next up: "Hitler on Ice"!
>

That would probably be the *most* fucked up theatrical show ever
produced... I'll buy tickets.

[Oxyaena]

All the heat from Nyikos' mirror must really be getting to him by now,
hopefully...

[Oxyaena]

On 10/10/2018 11:10 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 10:00:05 AM UTC-4, zencycle wrote:
>> On Sunday, October 7, 2018 at 9:00:04 AM UTC-4, Oxyaena wrote:
>>> On 10/6/2018 5:37 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>
>>>>         It is like the authors of scientific standard wanted to make
>>>> sure that things should be as confusing as possible.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The names were invented long before you or I came around,
>
> And formerly used in ways that are incompatible with present day
> usage. Romer (1945) restricted all of Hominidae to Homo, putting
> all the "great apes" and their ancestors back to *Propliopithecus*
> in Simiidae along with the australopithecines. Colbert (1955) put
> the extant great apes in Pongidae and only Homo into Hominidae,
> and was undecided as to where to put the australopithecines.

Which is why we shouldn't be considering Romer's opinion anymore.

>
> Carroll (1988) moved the australopithecines into Hominidae
> and split the rest of Colbert's Pongidae in two, putting gibbons
> into Hylobatidae and keeping the other great apes, including
> extinct ones, into what he called Pongidae.

Here you go with your preference for paraphyletic taxa over monophyletic
clades. Chimps are more closely related to us than to orangs, the LCA of
chimps and humans is more closely related to both Kanzi and you than
they were to orangs even back then.

>
> Then the cladophiles got into the act.

You're an idiot. There's no such thing as a "cladophile". There was
nothing sinister going on, Pongidae *isn't* a valid clade OR taxon.

Due to what seems to
> be a strong streak of anthropomorphism,

Due to what seems to be a strong streak of ignorance and paranoia, Peter
completely jumbles up the reason for naming the subfamily comprised of
gorillas, chimps, and humans "Homininae".

they expanded
> Hominidae to include all of Carroll's Pongidae. Needing a name for the
> clade {Homo, Pan, Gorilla} in contrast to Ponginae, the subfamily of
> orangutans and their kin, they decided to get really anthropomorphic
> and shoved the bunch into Homininae (probably doing it to Pan before
> they did it to Gorilla).

<facepalm>

>
> They split Homininae into tribe Hominini [1] and tribe Gorillini,
> and then split Hominini into subtribes Hominina and Panina.

Look up "priority" in the taxonomic nomenclature, dipshit.

>
> [1] Why not e.g. Panini? anthropomorphism, don'tcha know?
>

Harshman already explained why you're wrong on this, so I won't bother.


>
>> Back when these terms were coined, people in the field were looking for ways to unwind after long periods of research, and it became something of a drinking game. Everytime someone misspoke Homininae with Hominidae, they had to do a shot of laboratory grade ethyl alcohol.
>
> And the probable reason was the determination of cladophiles to
> impose their commandeering of old names for clades they never
> were attached to before.
>

Then you obviously don't know the *actual* reason.


> Cladophiles have commandeered names all over the place, banishing
> a great many extinct tetrapods known formerly as amphibians from Tetrapoda.
>
> There is a movements afoot to commandeer Amphibia to mean
> Lissamphibia,

Oh, god, not this again. That would be in line with the crown-group
definition of taxa favored by many systematists, and yet you don't seem
to have a problem with excluding docodonts and other mammaliformes from
Mammalia. Double standards, much?


the clade that includes only living amphibians and
> everything descended from their last common ancestor. Of course
> then "Lissamphibia" would be quietly retired.
>
> There is also a movement afoot to banish all known Mesozoic birds
> (Archaeopteryx, Confuciusornis, Ichthyornis, Hesperornis...)
> from Aves, and to commandeer Aves to mean Neornithes...

And? That's in line with the crown-group definition.


>
> [continue as above, substituting "Neornithes" for "Lissamphibia"]
>
>
> Isn't Newspeak wonderful? :-) :-(
>

Only Nyikos would compare cladistics to Newspeak.


>
> Peter Nyikos
> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> University of South Carolina
> http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
>

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 13 Oct 2018 15:08:22 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Oxyaena
<oxy...@error.invalid.address>:

It's from the Coming Attractions at the end of "History of
the World, Part 1" - a Mel Brooks masterpiece. So many good
parts I can't pick a favorite one.

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Film/HistoryOfTheWorldPartI

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, October 12, 2018 at 4:25:02 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:

In the category of "Phony Chez Watt Only Made Possible by Blatant Cherry-Picking":

> In the category of channeling "Springtime For Hitler".

As noted below, jillery does NOT like the idea of accusing
me of channeling "Springtime for Stalin." Could she have
a soft spot in her heart for Stalin, perhaps?

>
> >Perhaps the most widely acclaimed one I walked out on was "Cabaret."
> >There is something very wrong with a film where the only character
> >with any sense of direction is a Hitler Jugend singing,
> >"The Future Belongs to Me."

The following is a repost of the context from which the above
was chery-picked; it was posted immediately after the above paragraph:

___________ repost of text snipped by jillery______

Lots of Nazis and Communists thought and still think in the
same way; tragically mistaken, but still having a sense
of direction.

___________________end of main context________

The above snip suggests that jillery has no problem
with anyone channeling Springtime for Stalin,
because she hid the most important part of my point from sight.


ANTICLIMAX: Jillery's snip was Harshman-serving, because she
also snipped the paragraph that came immediately after the one
reposted above:

A sense of direction is something that you are increasingly losing
in sci.bio.paleontology now that Richard Norman is gone.

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 2:05:03 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Oct 2018 15:08:22 -0400, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Oxyaena
> <oxy...@error.invalid.address>:
>
> >On 10/13/2018 2:00 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> >> On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 16:20:34 -0400, the following appeared
> >> in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
> >>
> >>> In the category of channeling "Springtime For Hitler".
> >>
> >>>> Perhaps the most widely acclaimed one I walked out on was "Cabaret."
> >>>> There is something very wrong with a film where the only character
> >>>> with any sense of direction is a Hitler Jugend singing,
> >>>> "The Future Belongs to Me."
> >>
> >> Next up: "Hitler on Ice"!

That was obviously satirical, Bob, but in light of what jillery snipped,
would a similar treatment of "Stalin on Ice" been seen as satirical?

This is not only directed at you, Bob, whose answer will probably
be Yes, but also at jillery and especially Oxyaena. Also at any
other member of what I half-satirically call The Politically Correct
Thought Police. [Names of suspects on request.]

Here again is what jillery snipped immediately after the above
paragraph:

Lots of Nazis and Communists thought and still think in the
same way; tragically mistaken, but still having a sense
of direction.

Had jillery not snipped it, I would not have asked what I did just now
about "Stalin on Ice".

> >
> >That would probably be the *most* fucked up theatrical show ever
> >produced... I'll buy tickets.

That was Oxyaena's self-serving and jillery-serving comment. I wonder
whether she (or jillery) would have reacted the same way if the singer had
been a member of the Young Communist League instead.

Of course, Cabaret would have been a flop if that had been the
only change. It would have had to become a completely different
film, with the main characters inspired to abandon their dissolute ways,
and to join an anti-Hitler coalition modeled on the Spanish
Republicans (with the Communists playing a prominent part, of course).

Even then, it's not clear that "Cabaret" would have been a success;
but perhaps it would have been one on the level of "Reds".

> It's from the Coming Attractions at the end of "History of
> the World, Part 1" - a Mel Brooks masterpiece. So many good
> parts I can't pick a favorite one.
>
> https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Film/HistoryOfTheWorldPartI

Thanks for the reference, Bob. A word search of the page draws a
blank on "Stalin," making my question all the more interesting.

BTW, do you think Mel's treatment of Hitler was inspired by
the Charlie Chaplin film, "The Great Dictator"? [THAT film I saw,
and liked.] I saw no hint of it in the linked page,

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AdolfHitlarious

There is a link to "The Great Dictator" and sundry other things
at the bottom, but that doesn't answer this second question about
Mel's inspiration.


Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, October 11, 2018 at 4:55:02 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 10/11/18 1:05 PM, Oxyaena wrote:

> > On 10/10/2018 1:17 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 12:10:04 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:

> >>> On 10/10/18 8:10 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>> On Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 10:00:05 AM UTC-4, zencycle wrote:
> >>>>> On Sunday, October 7, 2018 at 9:00:04 AM UTC-4, Oxyaena wrote:
> >>>>>> On 10/6/2018 5:37 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>            It is like the authors of scientific standard wanted
> >>>>>>> to make
> >>>>>>> sure that things should be as confusing as possible.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The names were invented long before you or I came around,
> >>>>
> >>>> And formerly used in ways that are incompatible with present day
> >>>> usage. Romer (1945) restricted all of Hominidae to Homo, putting
> >>>> all the "great apes" and their ancestors back to *Propliopithecus*
> >>>> in Simiidae along with the australopithecines. Colbert (1955) put
> >>>> the extant great apes in Pongidae and only Homo into Hominidae,
> >>>> and was undecided as to where to put the australopithecines.
> >>>>

> >>>> Carroll (1988) moved the australopithecines into Hominidae
> >>>> and split the rest of Colbert's Pongidae in two, putting gibbons
> >>>> into Hylobatidae and keeping the other great apes, including
> >>>> extinct ones, into what he called Pongidae.
> >>>>

> >>>> Then the cladophiles got into the act. Due to what seems to
> >>>> be a strong streak of anthropomorphism, they expanded

> >>>> Hominidae to include all of Carroll's Pongidae. Needing a name for the
> >>>> clade {Homo, Pan, Gorilla} in contrast to Ponginae, the subfamily of
> >>>> orangutans and their kin, they decided to get really anthropomorphic
> >>>> and shoved the bunch into Homininae (probably doing it to Pan before
> >>>> they did it to Gorilla).
> >>>>

> >>>> They split Homininae into tribe Hominini [1] and tribe Gorillini,
> >>>> and then split Hominini into subtribes Hominina and Panina.
> >>>>

> >>>> [1] Why not e.g. Panini? anthropomorphism, don'tcha know?
> >>>

> >>> Priority under the ICZN, don'tcha know?
> >>
> >> Priority in what way?

Unable to wait for your parallel reply, John, Oxyaena
just had to strut what she hoped would pass as her expertise
in biology -- and, as usual, fell flat on her face:

> > They already had a taxon named *Hominidae*, therefore the priority under
> > taxonomic nomenclature was to name the subfamily *Homininae* after
> > *Homo*. Are you really that breathtakingly incompetent of basic
> > taxonomic rules?
>
> That isn't the rule. According to the ICZN you have to name a taxon
> after the first-described included genus,

Except when it isn't, as in the superfamily Anthropoidea [1]. I take it
by "group" you meant "from family on down", as you suggested
(although not consistently) in your parallel reply to me.

Can you direct me to a place where this ICZN convention is
authoritatively described? Wikipedia obviously doesn't count
where such a fine point is concerned.

[1] This was the old designation of what is now called "Simiiformes"
and reclassified as an infraorder. There is a lot of confusion
in this whole area of nomenclature, which may or may not be correctly
untangled in:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simian#Classification_and_evolution

Phylocode is one controversial way of overcoming some of these
problems, but IMHO the cure would be worse than the disease.

> which name belongs to the type
> species of the genus, which belongs to the type specimen. So any
> family-group name should be traceable back to the type specimen of its
> first-described genus. For any family-group name including Homo sapiens,
> that would be Homo, and thus the name must be based on Homo. Under the
> ICZN, humans cannot belong to Pongidae.

The real issue is whether any sub-taxon of a family is also
subject to that convention. Since you aren't clear
on that here, I requested some authoritative cite up there.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Department of Math. -- standard disclaimer --

Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/

[Oxyaena]

On 10/15/2018 1:00 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

>
> The real issue is whether any sub-taxon of a family is also
> subject to that convention. Since you aren't clear
> on that here, I requested some authoritative cite up there.

*Yes*, it is subject to that condition, but only for the sub-taxon the
holotype genus belongs to.

[Oxyaena]

On 10/15/2018 10:14 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Friday, October 12, 2018 at 4:25:02 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>
> In the category of "Phony Chez Watt Only Made Possible by Blatant Cherry-Picking":

That's not a Chez Watt, idiot.

>
>> In the category of channeling "Springtime For Hitler".
>
> As noted below, jillery does NOT like the idea of accusing
> me of channeling "Springtime for Stalin." Could she have
> a soft spot in her heart for Stalin, perhaps?

Can you back up these assertions of yours, douche bag? JAQing off is
still logically fallacious:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/JAQing_off

[snip mindless stupidity/paranoia]

[Oxyaena]

On 10/15/2018 11:37 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 2:05:03 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Oct 2018 15:08:22 -0400, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Oxyaena
>> <oxy...@error.invalid.address>:
>>
>>> On 10/13/2018 2:00 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 16:20:34 -0400, the following appeared
>>>> in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> In the category of channeling "Springtime For Hitler".
>>>>
>>>>>> Perhaps the most widely acclaimed one I walked out on was "Cabaret."
>>>>>> There is something very wrong with a film where the only character
>>>>>> with any sense of direction is a Hitler Jugend singing,
>>>>>> "The Future Belongs to Me."
>>>>
>>>> Next up: "Hitler on Ice"!
>
> That was obviously satirical, Bob, but in light of what jillery snipped,
> would a similar treatment of "Stalin on Ice" been seen as satirical?

Yes, it would. "Whataboutism" is a logical fallacy, one of many you've
been caught committing over the years.

>
> This is not only directed at you, Bob, whose answer will probably
> be Yes, but also at jillery and especially Oxyaena. Also at any
> other member of what I half-satirically call The Politically Correct
> Thought Police. [Names of suspects on request.]

So the list of people who think that being an asshole *isn't* okay? Why
doesn't it surprise me that you'd be so adamantly against the position
that being an asshole isn't okay.

[snip mindless insults and logically fallacious arguments]

[Oxyaena]

On 10/13/2018 3:18 PM, Oxyaena wrote:
> On 10/10/2018 11:10 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> On Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 10:00:05 AM UTC-4, zencycle wrote:
>>> On Sunday, October 7, 2018 at 9:00:04 AM UTC-4, Oxyaena wrote:
>>>> On 10/6/2018 5:37 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>           It is like the authors of scientific standard wanted to make
>>>>> sure that things should be as confusing as possible.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The names were invented long before you or I came around,
>>
>> And formerly used in ways that are incompatible with present day
>> usage. Romer (1945) restricted all of Hominidae to Homo, putting
>> all the "great apes" and their ancestors back to *Propliopithecus*
>> in Simiidae along with the australopithecines. Colbert (1955) put
>> the extant great apes in Pongidae and only Homo into Hominidae,
>> and was undecided as to where to put the australopithecines.
>
>
> Which is why we shouldn't be considering Romer's opinion anymore.
>
>
>>
>> Carroll (1988) moved the australopithecines into Hominidae
>> and split the rest of Colbert's Pongidae in two, putting gibbons
>> into Hylobatidae and keeping the other great apes, including
>> extinct ones, into what he called Pongidae.
>
> Here you go with your preference for paraphyletic taxa over monophyletic
> clades. Chimps are more closely related to us than to orangs, the LCA of
> chimps and humans is more closely related to both Kanzi and you than
> they were to orangs even back then.
>
>

[crickets]

>>
>> Then the cladophiles got into the act.
>
> You're an idiot. There's no such thing as a "cladophile". There was
> nothing sinister going on, Pongidae *isn't* a valid clade OR taxon.

[crickets]

>
>
>  Due to what seems to
>> be a strong streak of anthropomorphism,
>
> Due to what seems to be a strong streak of ignorance and paranoia, Peter
> completely jumbles up the reason for naming the subfamily comprised of
> gorillas, chimps, and humans "Homininae".

[crickets]

>
>  they expanded
>> Hominidae to include all of Carroll's Pongidae. Needing a name for the
>> clade {Homo, Pan, Gorilla} in contrast to Ponginae, the subfamily of
>> orangutans and their kin, they decided to get really anthropomorphic
>> and shoved the bunch into Homininae (probably doing it to Pan before
>> they did it to Gorilla).
>
> <facepalm>
>
>
>>
>> They split Homininae into tribe Hominini [1] and tribe Gorillini,
>> and then split Hominini into subtribes Hominina and Panina.
>
> Look up "priority" in the taxonomic nomenclature, dipshit.

[crickets]

>
>
>>
>> [1] Why not e.g. Panini? anthropomorphism, don'tcha know?
>>
>
> Harshman already explained why you're wrong on this, so I won't bother.
>
>
>>> Back when these terms were coined, people in the field were looking
>>> for ways to unwind after long periods of research, and it became
>>> something of a drinking game. Everytime someone misspoke Homininae
>>> with Hominidae, they had to do a shot of laboratory grade ethyl alcohol.
>>
>> And the probable reason was the determination of cladophiles to
>> impose their commandeering of old names for clades they never
>> were attached to before.
>>
>
> Then you obviously don't know the *actual* reason.

[crickets]

>
>
>> Cladophiles have commandeered names all over the place, banishing
>> a great many extinct tetrapods known formerly as amphibians from
>> Tetrapoda.
>>
>> There is a movements afoot to commandeer Amphibia to mean
>> Lissamphibia,
>
> Oh, god, not this again. That would be in line with the crown-group
> definition of taxa favored by many systematists, and yet you don't seem
> to have a problem with excluding docodonts and other mammaliformes from
> Mammalia. Double standards, much?

[crickets]

>
>
>  the clade that includes only living amphibians and
>> everything descended from their last common ancestor. Of course
>> then "Lissamphibia" would be quietly retired.
>>
>> There is also a movement afoot to banish all known Mesozoic birds
>> (Archaeopteryx, Confuciusornis, Ichthyornis, Hesperornis...)
>> from Aves, and to commandeer Aves to mean Neornithes...
>
> And? That's in line with the crown-group definition.

[crickets]

>
>
>>
>> [continue as above, substituting "Neornithes" for "Lissamphibia"]
>>
>>
>> Isn't Newspeak wonderful?    :-)  :-(
>>
>
> Only Nyikos would compare cladistics to Newspeak.

[crickets]

Chickenshit runs away again.

[John Harshman]

Family-group is a technical term of the ICZN, applying from superfamily
down to subtribe. I don't know why Anthropoidea was accepted, but I can
guess that it was a name applied before the ICZN was operating and so
grandfathered in.

> Can you direct me to a place where this ICZN convention is
> authoritatively described? Wikipedia obviously doesn't count
> where such a fine point is concerned.

http://www.iczn.org/iczn/index.jsp

> [1] This was the old designation of what is now called "Simiiformes"
> and reclassified as an infraorder. There is a lot of confusion
> in this whole area of nomenclature, which may or may not be correctly
> untangled in:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simian#Classification_and_evolution
>
> Phylocode is one controversial way of overcoming some of these
> problems, but IMHO the cure would be worse than the disease.
>
>> which name belongs to the type
>> species of the genus, which belongs to the type specimen. So any
>> family-group name should be traceable back to the type specimen of its
>> first-described genus. For any family-group name including Homo sapiens,
>> that would be Homo, and thus the name must be based on Homo. Under the
>> ICZN, humans cannot belong to Pongidae.
>
> The real issue is whether any sub-taxon of a family is also
> subject to that convention. Since you aren't clear
> on that here, I requested some authoritative cite up there.

The answer is yes, again for anything from superfamily to subtribe.

[jillery]

On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 07:14:56 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>On Friday, October 12, 2018 at 4:25:02 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>
>In the category of "Phony Chez Watt Only Made Possible by Blatant Cherry-Picking":
>
>> In the category of channeling "Springtime For Hitler".
>
>As noted below, jillery does NOT like the idea of accusing
>me of channeling "Springtime for Stalin." Could she have
>a soft spot in her heart for Stalin, perhaps?

I love it when you do your "Knights Who Say Ni!" impression. You make
everybody else look intelligent by comparison.

According to Google, there are in fact items called "Springtime For
Stalin", but I am hard-pressed to find any as well-known as
"Springtime For Hitler". Indeed, many of the former are pale parodies
of the latter. Even so, I couldn't find any as applicable to your
comments. Apparently you're unaware of the scene where the author of
the play reacts with self-righteous umbrage when he discovers on
opening night that his homage to Hitler had been turned into a farce.
That scene reminds me of you. Perhaps it's just me.

>> >Perhaps the most widely acclaimed one I walked out on was "Cabaret."
>> >There is something very wrong with a film where the only character
>> >with any sense of direction is a Hitler Jugend singing,
>> >"The Future Belongs to Me."
>
>The following is a repost of the context from which the above
>was chery-picked;

Of course it was cherry-picked. All proper Chez Watts are
cherry-picked, by definition. That's why your Chez Watts are not Chez
Watts. How can you have hung around T.O. for so long and not know
this?

[jillery]

On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 08:37:53 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 2:05:03 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Oct 2018 15:08:22 -0400, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Oxyaena
>> <oxy...@error.invalid.address>:
>>
>> >On 10/13/2018 2:00 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 16:20:34 -0400, the following appeared
>> >> in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>> >>
>> >>> In the category of channeling "Springtime For Hitler".
>> >>
>> >>>> Perhaps the most widely acclaimed one I walked out on was "Cabaret."
>> >>>> There is something very wrong with a film where the only character
>> >>>> with any sense of direction is a Hitler Jugend singing,
>> >>>> "The Future Belongs to Me."
>> >>
>> >> Next up: "Hitler on Ice"!
>
>That was obviously satirical, Bob, but in light of what jillery snipped,
>would a similar treatment of "Stalin on Ice" been seen as satirical?

Since you asked, no. Instead it would have been correctly seen as
another example of you aping "The Knights Who Say Ni!". While "Hitler
On Ice" actually exists, AFAICS "Stalin On Ice" is entirely a figment
of your imagination.

<snip remaining spew>

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, October 16, 2018 at 12:10:02 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 08:37:53 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 2:05:03 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> >> On Sat, 13 Oct 2018 15:08:22 -0400, the following appeared
> >> in talk.origins, posted by Oxyaena
> >> <oxy...@error.invalid.address>:
> >>
> >> >On 10/13/2018 2:00 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 16:20:34 -0400, the following appeared
> >> >> in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
> >> >>
> >> >>> In the category of channeling "Springtime For Hitler".
> >> >>
> >> >>>> Perhaps the most widely acclaimed one I walked out on was "Cabaret."
> >> >>>> There is something very wrong with a film where the only character
> >> >>>> with any sense of direction is a Hitler Jugend singing,
> >> >>>> "The Future Belongs to Me."
> >> >>
> >> >> Next up: "Hitler on Ice"!
> >
> >That was obviously satirical, Bob, but in light of what jillery snipped,
> >would a similar treatment of "Stalin on Ice" been seen as satirical?
>
>
> Since you asked, no.

I was referring to a hypothetical similar treatment of Stalin, sufficiently
similar so that one might call it "Stalin on Ice".

You might wish to modify what you wrote below in the light of this.

Peter Nyikos

PS At the end you referred to as "spew" something
that also discussed a hypothetical situation. Evidently the
idea of replacing a Hitler Jugend with a member of a Young Communist
League, thereby forcing "Cabaret" to take a completely different
turn to be popular, hit a raw nerve somewhere.

[jillery]

On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 11:58:04 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>On Tuesday, October 16, 2018 at 12:10:02 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 08:37:53 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
>> <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sunday, October 14, 2018 at 2:05:03 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 13 Oct 2018 15:08:22 -0400, the following appeared
>> >> in talk.origins, posted by Oxyaena
>> >> <oxy...@error.invalid.address>:
>> >>
>> >> >On 10/13/2018 2:00 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> >> >> On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 16:20:34 -0400, the following appeared
>> >> >> in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> In the category of channeling "Springtime For Hitler".
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>> Perhaps the most widely acclaimed one I walked out on was "Cabaret."
>> >> >>>> There is something very wrong with a film where the only character
>> >> >>>> with any sense of direction is a Hitler Jugend singing,
>> >> >>>> "The Future Belongs to Me."
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Next up: "Hitler on Ice"!
>> >
>> >That was obviously satirical, Bob, but in light of what jillery snipped,
>> >would a similar treatment of "Stalin on Ice" been seen as satirical?
>>
>>
>> Since you asked, no.
>
>I was referring to a hypothetical similar treatment of Stalin, sufficiently
>similar so that one might call it "Stalin on Ice".
>
>You might wish to modify what you wrote below in the light of this.

Nope, nor do I see why I should. Your premise here is based on your
illogical claim that the Cabaret scene you describe illustrates some
equivalence between Nazis and Communists and John Harshman, and your
Big Lie illusion that my Chez Watt of it implies I favor Communists.

As I pointed out elsethread, my Chez Watt reflects your bizarre
interpretations of pop culture references, based partly on your
ignorance of them, and partly on your Trump-like self-promotion by
accusing others of doing what you do yourself. That you described
your behavior so similarly to that of the fictional "Springtime For
Hitler" playwright was just too good a case of art imitating life not
to do a double take.

And pedantically, the title of the song to which you refer is
"Tomorrow Belongs To Me". It beautifully echoed the entire rhythm of
the movie. You might wish to make a note of that, if only so you
don't sound quite so culturally clueless in the future.

[Burkhard]

John Harshman wrote:
> On 10/10/18 3:18 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> I walked out of that movie shortly after that scene, disgusted
>> with how ridiculously farfetched I thought that portrayal was.
>

> Now this is fascinating. *That* was the bit you thought was farfetched?

> The idea of a king prancing along in front of a servant who was clapping

> together two coconut shells wasn't farfetched? And you walked out

> because a very silly comedy wasn't realistic enough for you?

I always thought it gives a highly accurate socio-political account of
how by exploiting the workers and by hanging on to outdated imperialist
dogma which perpetuates the economic and social differences in society,
the violence inherent in the system becomes manifest again and again

> Many through the years have claimed that you have no discernible sense of
> humor, but this certainly is the best evidence so far.

[jillery]

On Tue, 30 Oct 2018 17:14:29 +0100, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

>John Harshman wrote:
>> On 10/10/18 3:18 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> I walked out of that movie shortly after that scene, disgusted
>>> with how ridiculously farfetched I thought that portrayal was.
>>
>> Now this is fascinating. *That* was the bit you thought was farfetched?
>> The idea of a king prancing along in front of a servant who was clapping
>> together two coconut shells wasn't farfetched? And you walked out
>> because a very silly comedy wasn't realistic enough for you?
>
>
>I always thought it gives a highly accurate socio-political account of
>how by exploiting the workers and by hanging on to outdated imperialist
>dogma which perpetuates the economic and social differences in society,
>the violence inherent in the system becomes manifest again and again

Be careful, or the Black Knight will bite your legs off.

>> Many through the years have claimed that you have no discernible sense of
>> humor, but this certainly is the best evidence so far.
>>
>> You're acting just like Graham Chapman's stuffy British Army major.
>> "This sketch has become silly!"
>>