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

Re: Thoughts on the biggest morphological bird analysis

I take a very different view. I don't think it's quite correct to assume
that when a morphology-based analysis disagrees with a molecule-based
analysis that the former is at fault. Both kinds of analyses (morphological
vs molecular) have problems with homoplasy.

Of course, but when different genes say the same thing, without an identifiable selection pressure that could work on them all (like base composition bias), I'll trust large molecular analyses over fossil-less or otherwise too small morphological analyses any day of the week. Thus, a bat-colugo clade is clearly out of the question, and a loon-grebe clade looks unlikely -- here we have only three molecular analyses so far, but we have Mayr's (admittedly small) morphological analysis that includes the extinct flamingo diversity and *Juncitarsus*, while Livezey & Zusi only use extant taxa in that part of the tree.