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

Re: legless lizards?

--- Mickey Mortimer <Mickey_Mortimer111@msn.com>

> In case any of you are wondering, the suggested
> squamate phylogeny in this
> paper is-
> |--Dibamidae
> |--Gekkonidae
> `--+--+--Scincidae
>    |  `--+--Xantusiidae
>    |     `--Cordylidae
>    `--+--+--Iguanidae
>       |  `--+--Agamidae
>       |     `--Chameleonidae
>       |--+--+--Teiidae
>       |  |  `--Gymnophthalmidae
>       |  `--+--Lacertidae
>       |     `--Amphisbaenia
>       |--Serpentes
>       `--+--+--Varanidae
>          |  `--Shinisaurus
>          `--+--Anguidae
>             |--Helodermatidae
>             `--Xenosaurus
> All nodes were supported by >95% posterior
> probability and bootstrap in the
> analysis of nuclear genes RAG-1 and c-mos


Am I reading that right? Did they completely throw out
the Iguania-Scleroglossa split? Furthermore, they nest
Iguania well inside Scleroglossa.

According to the above cladogram, Townsend et al, seem
to suggest that iguanian archaic traits, are only
superficial. This would mean that they re-evolved a
fleshy tongue (which would have been long since
decoupled from food acquisition; based off the close
relationship to teiids), then re-evolved the upper
temporal arch, and re-evolved a more robust skull to
go with it. 

Why do so many of these molecular trees, produce
results that seem to come into conflict with the
morphological trees?

Are we just reading stuff wrong?


"I am impressed by the fact that we know less about many modern [reptile] types 
than we do of many fossil groups." - Alfred S. Romer

Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around