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

Re: Gauthier & de Quieroz et al.



 
Georg Fuellen, Johann-Wolfgang Wa[e]gele, Robert Giegerich, et al., [...]
An interesting document is Georg Fuellen's 2000 dissertation (140 pages), "Computing phylogenies by computing biosequences following principles of traditional systematics". This can be found at <http://archiv.ub.uni-bielefeld.de/disshabi/2000> follow the link to the dissertation 0026, which is accessible as a pdf, and read.
I'll read it, because I don't understand the few pages I've already looked at.
Georg's mentor is the systematicist J.-W. Wa[e]gele, who in 1994, presented a collaborative paper with Ronald Wetzel, in Jour. Natural History 28(4), "Nucleic acid sequence data are not per se reliable for inference of phylogenies".
Haven't read that -- may I offer a prejudice? They aren't reliable because they practically always find Ecdysozoa and Lophotrochozoa, and never his beloved Articulata. "Wägele et al. (1999)" is what I cut out of the Zrzavý quote. OK, I'll stop here and look for the paper.
Coupled with several other papers, the reader (and List participant) will have further tools for sorting out some of semantic tap-dancing encountered in recent days in these postings re: Aves.
The Phylocode is evolving, and phylogenetic systematics just might (at least, I would hope so) forever end the nonsensical harping on every indeterminate scrap of dinosaur bone given a new name.
No, why? The binomial will disappear some way or other, but the current draft of the PhyloCode wouldn't stop anyone from naming a new clade with a scrappy specimen as an anchor.
Stephan Jay Gould [...]
Stephen. :-)