True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing

Actually, now that I spent some time there on this project I would have to agree they are not an up to date source for hominid classification.I retract my support for ToL.HBD

Nice.I'll give it a try tomorrow. Is that "Odd nosed group" in the middle?Enjoyps -- my "justification" for using wikipedia rather that primary sources is that I figure it filters the information to present the majority consensus view. Of course that could just be me being lazy ...pps -- you have to use

 ... 

or [code] ... [/code] to get the txt to line up.Edited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : img

Yes, 'odd-nosed group'; so named because it contains snub-nosed monkeys and the proboscis monkey. I can't find that anyone's ever proposed a formal name for it.I think Wikipedia is a good source for the consensus on major groups. They often feature the major competing hypotheses where things are not settled.Pages which attract less interest often promote outdated or new-fangled hypotheses because of one determined editor, however. Purgatorius is usually considered a stem-primate; but a couple of recent studies instead find that it's outside the clade formed by living placentals. There's an editor who refuses to accept this as a hypothesis; so it's a fact as far as Wiki is concerned.

That's what I figured, especially when backed up by the New World Encyclopedia and other sources.See new Primate cladogram evolution thread (not promoted yet) started to discuss the process of change in information within science in general and cladograms in particular. Message 2 is beginning of what you started ... Now that may fill out from Catarrhini down, but I suspect a lot of branches are still missing.Enjoy