[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 01:23:03 GMT Ken Kinman <email@example.com> wrote:
> I'm wondering which tripartite bilaterian phylogeny you are
referring > to. Did any of your students question whether one of the
three "clades" > might be paraphyletic?
The tripartite phylogeny I was referring to is summarised in several
papers over the past few years, e.g.
Adoutte, A., G. Balavoine, N. Lartillot, O. Lespinet, B. PrudÕhomme and
R. de Rosa (2000) The new animal phylogeny: reliability and
implications. PNAS 97: 4453-4456
Balavoine, G., and A. Adoutte (1998) One or three Cambrian radiations?
Science 280: 397-398
Conway Morris, S. (1998) Metazoan phylogenies: falling into place or
falling to pieces? A palaeontological perspective. Curr. Opin. Gen.
Devel. 8: 662-667
de Rosa, R., J.K. Grenier, T. Andreeva, C.E. Cook, A. Adoutte, M. Akam,
S.B. Carroll and G. Balavoine (1999) Hox genes in brachiopods and
priapulids and protostome evolution. Nature 399: 772-776
Knoll, A.H., and S.B. Carroll (1999) Early animal evolution: emerging
views from comparative biology and geology. Science 284: 2129-2137
Peterson, K.J., and E.H. Davidson (2000) Regulatory evolution and the
origin of the bilaterians. PNAS 97: 4430-4433
None of the students questioned whether any of the three clades were
paraphyletic. If they were they wouldn't be clades, would they? I have
read that it is possible that cnidarians are paraphyletic, and that
poriferans (sponges) are PROBABLY paraphyletic. However, as far as I am
aware results to date suggest Deuterostomes, Lophotrochozoa and
Ecdysozoa are all clades. Analyses that place Platyhelminthes outside
Lophotrochozoa have been questioned.