[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
<<Having read the paper by Woodbury on spinal cord morphology - this is
a great paper, it describes in detail _one_ character that will be of
use to studies of avian phylogeny - BUT it is just that, ONE character -
this on its own does not provide any tangible evidence for the
production of an evolutionary scenario- cleary the contention that, for
example, passerines are "primitive birds" will need to be tested within
the context of a character analysis that contains more than just one
character. As such, the result produce may simply be a single incidence
of homoplasy -
(Not yet having read the paper but hopefully soon.)
I agree that making vast phylogenies based on ONE character can be like
walking a rickety bridge over some rapidly flowing river, but
occasionally, when taken in account with other evidence, it can be quite
Take bats for example:
In 1986, Pettigrew found that megabats (Megachiroptera) share several
unique brain to eye nerve pathways not found in microbats
(Microchiroptera), but found ONLY in primates. This is the primary
evidence for bat diphyly published thus far, but it involves a suite of
nervous system characters that 1) are not easily developed in parallel;
2) are found to be IDENTICAL in both megabats and primates. There are
numerous other characters that link megabats to primates (including
_Cynocephalus_) and not microbats but I won't discuss them here.
Anyway, sometimes a single character can be informative and can provide
support for certain phylogenetic hypotheses. Now, I can tell you that
from what I have heard about this paper that nothing in it are really
new hypotheses: piciform polyphyly has been suggested numerous times. I
think that now there is mounting evidence to suggest that the
'Piciformes' of the classical sense is polyphyletic such as:
1) The small number of characters linking Pici and Galbulae.
2) The number of characters that Galbulae shares with Coraciidae but
not with Pici.
Another thing that must be discussed is the relations of the passerines.
Really, it is only been tradition to place passerines at the head of
avian cladograms, along with 'piciformes' and coraciiformes. Really,
the placement of the passerines in a basal position in the neornithines
and neognaths really does not effect much; they are still close to the
only real serious candidates for passerine ancestry: Pici.
Increasingly, avian phylogeny of both living and fossil forms is very
enigmatic. Placements in avian phylogeny are less concrete now as they
have ever been. _Opisthocomus_ is a good example of poorly resolved
relationships; it has been placed as a galliform, a cuculiform, a
musophagid, a gruiform, etc., and it certainly sounds like its "perch"
in the cuculiformes is becoming rather tenuous.
But also, as Gareth rightly noted, a single character such as the
nervous system of birds can develop in similiar ways so homoplasy would
be rampant. Things like the sehnenhalter in zygodactyl birds have
evolved many seperate times. If Elzanowski is to be believed, tooth
loss in neornthines evolved twice (of course, there are many reasons not
to believe the placement of hesperornithids in Neognathae such as the
similiar morphologies of galliformes and tinamous).
The ultimate question is: what characters should be used to invoke
relationships within Aves and its possible outgroups? The answer, thus
far, is unknown.
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
- Re: BIRDS
- From: Joe Daniel <email@example.com>