Much of the literature on the chromosomes of the Hominoidea exists in virtual isolation from both evolutionary theory and physical anthropology. Several unjustified speculations about hominoid affinities in the literature of cytogenetics may be attributed to the effects of this isolation. In this paper, the literature of comparative hominoid cytogenetics is reviewed, and that on chromosomal band patterns and repetitive DNA distributions relative to current evolutionary theory is discussed. These data are critically analyzed and shown to be more consistent with an orthodox hominoid phylogeny than with heterodox phylogenies. Rates and modes of karyotypic evolution are also discussed in an attempt to begin to assimilate the study of hominoid chromosomes within the framework of physical anthropology.The study of the the cytogenetics of primates has generated an enormous amount of information, which has not yet been assimilated into the main fabric of physical anthropology. The reasons are several: (1) The work has appeared in specialized cytogenetics journals; (2) the work has been done by researchers unfamiliar with the discipline of physical anthropology; (3)the interpretations do not have a coherent phylogenetic framework, and have produced heterodox conclusions; and (4) primate cytogenetics is frequently compromised by an unfamiliarity with the lingua franca of comparative life-science, the systematics of the animals being studied. This last point is important as the lack of facility with primate taxonomy undermines the researchers' credibility and obscures the meaning of comparative statements (Table 1).This review attempts to take what has been learned about the organization of the genetic material of the primate superfamily Hominoidea and to fit it within the generally accepted framework of catarrhine evolution. It also criticizes some of the existing interpretations of the cytogenetic data. The review is divided into five sections: (1) a discussion of the history and significance of hominoid chromosomes; (2) chromosomal banding homologies of the great apes and humans; (3) repetitive DNA sequences in these primates; (4) variation in rates of chromosomal evolution; and (5) a discussion of phylogenetic inference based upon chromosomal data.The following general evolutionary tenet is adopted for this review: Phylogenetic sister groups, closest relatives, are to be recognized by the sharing of derived traits, evolutionary novelties, not by the sharing of ancestral traits (Hennig, 1965;Simpson, 1975). The useful, if cumbersome, Hennigian lexicon is adopted to highlight this distinction.Finally, there is a subtle, but critical, difference between cytogeneticists and evolutionary biologists in use of the term «homology." In cytogenetics, homology is taken as phenetic similarity of chromosomes antecedent to phylogenetic reconstruction (the word "homoeology" refers to less phenetic similarity). Thus, Prakash (1982 p. 1529) write that «no homology could be found" among the Ychromosomes of the apes before the...
