[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Cladistics (was Sci. Am. - present)
>Christopher Brochu <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> I'm not sure why this is. In the vast majority of cases, DNA sequence
>> and morphology tell you more or less the same thing. Molecular data are
>> no less subject to selective pressures, and levels of homoplasy given
>> sets of the same size are no different.
>> 10 years ago, the question was "should it be molecules or morphology?"
>> Today, the answer is "yes!"
>Yes, but there are certainly examples where our morphologically-based
>phylogenies have been disproven by DNA sequence data. For example, recent
>DNA research has shown today's elephants to share a common ancestor with
>hyraxes, manatees, dugongs, aardvarks, golden moles, and (I love this one)
>elephant shrews. Nobody predicted such a family.
Actually, morphological data *did* predict most of this, and AFAIK the
elephant shrew bit is poorly-supported by a few genes - this is not a case
of morphology being overturned by molecular data.
>It would appear that we will never get the DNA sequence data required to
>put our morphologically-based dinosaur phylogenies to a proper test.
Or, conversely, that we'll never have sufficient morphological variation to
test molecular phylogenies for, say, bacterial strains. Morphology and
molecules both preserve a phylogenetic signal.
Postdoctoral Research Scientist
Department of Geology
Field Museum of Natural History
Lake Shore Drive at Roosevelt Road
Chicago, IL 60605 USA