Identifying primate species: Themes and Perspectives

Evolution of the modern baboon (Papio hamadryas): A reassessment of the African Plio-Pleistocene record

“…On the other hand, at least two of us (CCG, KDP) prefer the Phylogenetic Species Concept (PSC), which is more widely accepted in current primate studies (e.g., see Groves, 2001Groves, , 2014Fleagle, 2014;Jolly, 2014;Louis and Lei, 2014;Rylands and Mittermeier, 2014;Silcox, 2014;Tattersall, 2014;Yoder, 2014;Zimmerman and Radespiel, 2014;Zinner and Roos, 2014) and has the advantage of relying on consistent phenotypic (in this case, morphological) differences rather than reproductive isolation as a criterion of separation. Given the widespread documentation of hybridization among commonly recognized primate species (e.g., see Tung and Barreiro, 2017 and references therein), some even representing different genera (most relevant in this case, Papio x Rungwecebus and Papio x Theropithecus; see Davenport et al, 2006;Olson et al, 2008;Burrell et al, 2009;Zinner et al, 2009Zinner et al, , 2018Roberts et al, 2010;Tung and Barreiro, 2017), it seems more and more difficult to rely on reproductive isolation as the defining characteristic of a species or evolutionary coherent lineage/population.…”

“…Despite their evolutionary success and wide distribution across modern African ecological communities, the origins of the genus in the fossil record are not clear. Current molecular and morphological evidence suggests that, among living African papionins, Papio is closely related to Theropithecus, Lophocebus, and Rungwecebus (Disotell et al, 1992;Disotell, 1994Disotell, , 2000Harris and Disotell, 1998;Fleagle andMcGraw, 1999, 2002;Tosi et al, 1999Tosi et al, , 2003Davenport et al, 2006;Gilbert, 2007Olson et al, 2008;Burrell et al, 2009;Zinner et al, 2009;Gilbert et al, 2009aGilbert et al, , 2011Roberts et al, 2010), and within this group, the most recent analyses suggest a closer relationship between Papio and Lophocebus, with Theropithecus at the base of this clade (Perelman et al, 2011;Springer et al, 2012;Guevara and Steiper, 2014;Pugh and Gilbert, in press). The position of Rungwecebus is controversial, being most recently reconstructed as the sister taxon to Papio in molecular studies (Davenport et al, 2006;Olson et al, 2008;Burrell et al, 2009;Zinner et al, 2009;Roberts et al, 2010), yet most similar to Lophocebus in morphological comparisons (Jones et al, 2005;Davenport et al, 2006;Singleton, 2009;Singleton et al, 2010;Gilbert et al, 2011a;.…”