[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: CHIROPTERAN DIPHYLY



><<Betty's right: what I was actually referign to was a big brown bat;
>what I first thought of as a megachiropteran appears to be a very
>large microchiropteran, which small ears and a very unmodified nose
>(it looked like a megachiropteran, just very small and the head does
>look similar to micros), and I don't know much of the differences
>between the two groups. Matt's refs on mirco polyphyly may have
>something to say, but anyway, I have only a few things on bats, and
>most of these are on micros. Sorry.>>
>
>Microchiropteran polyphyly has been suggested, yes, but I usually talk
>about CHIROPTERAN diphyly.  That is, the controversy over whether or not
>Megachiroptera+Microchiroptera form a monophyletic group.  John
>Pettigrew has been the most vocal on this issue, basing his arguments on
>the fact that megabats and primates (including the colugo) share several
>(a few dozen) nervous system specializations not found in microbats.
>Bat diphyly is nothing really new; Hill and Smith have suggested this
>many times during the 70s (again, shared characters between megabats and
>primates not found in microbats; this time penial characters).  Also,
>there is some molecular evidence that supports diphyly in bats.  All in
>all, I think that the case for bat diphyly is pretty strong, but it
>needs more osteological and myological data, something that proponents
>of bat monophyly have.

The most thorough analyses of both morphology and molecules *strongly*
support bat monophyly.  If you haven't seen it, take a look at the recent
Simmons et al. monograph in Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural
History.



chris



Christopher Brochu
Department of Geology
Field Museum of Natural History
Roosevelt Road at Lake Shore Drive
Chicago, IL 60605

312-922-9410 x469