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

Re: bats



David Marjanovic (david.marjanovic@gmx.at) wrote:

<"Sympatric" refers to neither nor. Instead it's from Greek syn, together,
and Latin patria, fatherland -- species that live in the same area are
sympatric.>

  Though this may be a more lay definition, the operating definition I had
was this one:

  "Definition: speciation without spatial separation of a population or
speciation from within a population."

  This latter definition has nothing to do with geography, but refers
indeed to relationship, or rather that "parent" stock from which two
lineages might derive. Sympatry is literally "same parentage."

<*Icaronycteris* has a rather long tail, but very few vertebrae in it.>

  This is the case for many long-tailed rodents, and one reason why murids
do not have very prehensile tails.

<The recent Rhinopomatidae have tails that make up half their total
lengths, which should be derived.>

  As I beleive it is. This is a reversal condition from the outgroup
status, however. Similarly, megabats do not have very short tails and
based on all morphology, it would appear they are essentially basal to
microbats with some exceptions, resulting in recent molecular studies that
support a polyphyly with some microbats closer to megabats. I have not
checked on these groups' tailedness.

<-- Primatomorpha, both morphologically and molecularly, includes
Dermoptera and Primates (and Plesiadapiformes).>

  My structure was that Primates ends before lemuriforms join.
Primatomorpha being Primates plus Lemuriformes. If you have a definition
that is based on other sources, tell me.

<Molecules don't find  Archonta, instead 
Laurasiatheria
  |--Eulipotyphla (shrews, moles, hedgehogs)
  `--Scrotifera
       |--Chiroptera
       `--Fereuungulata
            |--Cetartiodactyla
            |--Perissodactyla
            `--Ferae
                 |--Carnivora
                 `--Pholidota>

  This is one molecular tree. There is a symposium volume out there in
_Systematic Biology_ (I think) that offers a variety of trees, including
supporting pholidotes as xenathran relatives, paraphyletic
euliptotyphlans, fereunglates non-existant, and so forth. This was one
reason why I wrote earlier on the PhyloCode list that mammals do not enjoy
a consistent molecular phylogeny. If you will persue the archives, you
will find some extensive discussion on this matter around late 2000 or so.

<The name Scrotifera suggests that there are one or two potential 
morphological synapomorphies... so we can probably wait for a paper with a
reconciliation, as is _slowly_ happening with Afrotheria.>

  So far, all morphological support I have seen for Afrotheria is based on
plesiomorphies for placentals in general. Is there more consensus from
your perspective on actual autapomorphies?

  Cheers,

=====
Jaime A. Headden

  Little steps are often the hardest to take.  We are too used to making leaps 
in the face of adversity, that a simple skip is so hard to do.  We should all 
learn to walk soft, walk small, see the world around us rather than zoom by it.

"Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth." --- P.B. Medawar (1969)

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com