[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: A Wild Hare [not dino related]
Having seen what havoc molecular studies have done to the logic behind
reptile (non synapsid) studies, I'm not sure I can put much 'faith' in
Are molecular studies proof? Or evidence? And what is the final measure in
In the end, and at this point, I'll have to go with precise and holistic
morph. studies, until convinced otherwise. (Keeping an opinion mind for
all those who wish to opine)
Pettigrew et al. gives a really convincing account, including reams of
soft tissue data that is well worth a read.
Nick Pharris wrote:
> Quoting david peters <email@example.com>:
> > http://www.batcon.org/batsmag/v3n2-1.html
> > Are flying foxes really primates?
> Short answer: No.
> Long answer: Recent molecular studies have thoroughly refuted the
> hypothesis that bats are diphyletic, with megabats closer to primates.
> Last I heard, molecular evidence was even indicating that
> Microchiroptera is actually paraphyletic with respect to
> Megachiroptera, and that bats are on a totally different branch (no pun
> intended) from primates on the placental tree (hanging out with shrews,
> true ungulates, carnivores, and pangolins).
> >> In the above paper is a ref [not copied] for some soft-tissue
> > cladistic work describing a close association between lagomorphs and
> > primates.
> Interesting. Molecular evidence also indicates that rabbits + rodents
> are close to primates + tree shrews + colugos.
> > 1. Do eurymlids have a large diastema like Gomphos, lagomorphs and
> > rodents do?
> Not familiar with them.
> > 2. I know that a basal primate, Plesiadapis, has a large diastema,
> > among other interesting characters.
> May not be a primate; possibly closer to dermapterans, though (AFAIK)
> still an archontan.
> > 3. Did the two large diastemas, so close to each other on the tree,
> > develop convergently? Or is there another connection?
> > And in a worst-case scenario, wouldn't that be weird?
> Not really. Highly related to food processing; diastemata appear to
> have arisen many times among mammals.
> Nick Pharris
> Department of Linguistics
> University of Michigan