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

Re: origin of bats/suspect trees?




 


> From: Mike Habib <habib@jhmi.edu>

> 
> But couldn't we also take this to indicate that the morphological  
> trees are suspect?  With these sorts of disagreements, I don't see any  
> specific reason to favor one data source over the other, out of hand.  
> It depends very much on the quality of the specific work in each  
> case.  Some DNA datasets are very small and weak, while others are  
> large and analyzed with robust methods.  Same can be said for  
> morphology.
> 
> 
If the taxon lists are the same using morphology, the tree results will be the 
same, if you employ at least 150 characters. Thatâs the bottom line. Thatâs 
always been the bottom line. Doesnât matter which characters. Delete 
cranials. Delete post-cranials. Delete axials. Delete every other character, or 
every tenth. If you test like this, youâll see what I mean. 

Delete taxa, and things change. Use suprageneric taxa and youâre making 
assumptions. 

Getting back to bats: At least we should be looking for non-volant mammals with 
SOME bat characters, like broad flat ribs, reduced distal ulna, pedal 
proportions, wrist fusions, tooth counts, tooth shapes, etc. Funny thing is, 
there are such creatures, and they are arboreal, theyâre just not cats, pigs 
and hedgehogs.