The relative congruence of cranial and genetic estimates of hominoid taxon relationships: Implications for the reconstruction of hominin phylogeny

Previous analyses of extant catarrhine craniodental morphology have often failed to recover their molecular relationships, casting doubt on the accuracy of hominin phylogenies based on anatomical data. However, on the basis of genetic, morphometric and environmental affinity patterns, a growing body of literature has demonstrated that particular aspects of cranial morphology are remarkably reliable proxies for neutral modern human population history. Hence, it is important to test whether these intra-specific patterns can be extrapolated to a broader primate taxon level such that inference rules for understanding the morphological evolution of the extinct hominins may be devised. Here, we use a matrix of molecular distances between 15 hominoid taxa to test the genetic congruence of 14 craniomandibular regions, defined and morphometrically delineated on the basis of previous modern human analyses. This methodology allowed us to test directly whether the cranial regions found to be reliable indicators of population history were also more reliable proxies for hominoid genetic relationships. Cranial regions were defined on the basis of three criteria: developmental-functional units, individual bones, and regions differentially affected by masticatory stress. The results found that all regions tested were significantly and strongly correlated with the molecular matrix. However, the modern human predictions regarding the relative congruence of particular regions did not hold true, as the face was statistically the most reliable indicator of hominoid genetic distances, as opposed to the vault or basicranium. Moreover, when modern humans were removed from the analysis, all cranial regions improved in their genetic congruence, suggesting that it is the inclusion of morphologically-derived humans that has the largest effect on incongruence between morphological and molecular estimates of hominoid relationships. Therefore, it may be necessary to focus on smaller intra-generic taxonomic levels to more fully understand the effects of neutral and selective evolutionary processes in generating morphological diversity patterns.