[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: The Papers That Ate Cincinnati
> On 5/5/07, evelyn sobielski <email@example.com>
> > In a nutshell, if monophyly as
> > understood by Hennig rather sooner than later
> > out to be an exception rather than the rule, I'll
> > the last to be surprised.
> I'm not clear on what you mean by this. The
> exception in terms of
> what? Monophyletic entities do exist....
The point is rather than non-monophyletic descent
*also* exists, and not actually little of it.
This is a crude representation of the internal pattern
of the _Triticum_-_Aegilops_ clade. What would
PhyloCode do with it?
This is not an uncommon phylogeny in plants. Branches
have varying widths; usually the hybrid branch is
small but not necessarily so. It also occurs in
animals (Anas, Cnemidophorus, IIRC some Osteichthyes,
Rana... possibly common as crap in invertebrates,
possibly just frequent & widespread).
Then, lichen. May or may not have a single basal node.
This node or nodes unites 2 lineages of descent from
entirely different clades into a new organism.
Then, anything that is unicellular and reproduces
clonally. In these cases, ontogenetic genetic changes
(eg by HGT) *are* possible phylogenetic changes. How
to define clades in these?
Or try Woese
The point seems not that phylogenies are unfeasible as
a classification framework; they better should be
useful and they are. It's rather that there is a
trade-off between rigidity of the classification
system and appropriate representation of evolutionary
reality. It's a bit like the Classis problem, only the
other way around.
(If you like to lose respect in Mayr,
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/95/17/9720.pdf for his
critique of Woese's "Henningian" decision to recognize
the distinctness of the Archaea. Bleh. He should have
stuck to the BoPs.
Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de