[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: Morpho v molecular (was Re: Tinamous: living dinosaurs)
> From: owner-DINOSAUR@usc.edu [mailto:owner-DINOSAUR@usc.edu]
> On Behalf Of David Marjanovic
> > Mickey Mortimer <email@example.com> wrote:
> > > Has there ever been a case where a well established
> > > relationship was discarded due to morphology? There have been
> > > molecular-based relationships that were later changed by better
> > > molecular data which matched morphological ideas (e.g.
> guinea pigs
> > > aren't rodents), but I don't know of any molecular-based
> > > relationship which is consistantly found and which
> workers believe
> > > is wrong.
> > I can think of two, off the top of my head.
> > 1. Whippomorpha
> > By and large, paleo workers believe the molecular-based
> > (Whippomorpha) is wrong.
Not really. At least, not at conferences. Yes, there was resistence at first,
but the discovery of additional basal whales with
artiodactyl features and the inclusion of many more basal artios and their kin
into matrices seems to have convinced the majority of
paleomammologists I know that this is the correct position in some
configuration or other. I know some hardliners who still reject
it, but I'm sure we can all think of some folks who--despite considerable
evidence to the contrary--refuse to accept that some taxon
(I don't know, say... Aves?) does not belong inside some other long established
groups (like, say, I don't know... Dinosauria?)
Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Phone: 301-405-4084
Office: Centreville 1216
Senior Lecturer, Vertebrate Paleontology
Dept. of Geology, University of Maryland
Faculty Director, Science & Global Change Program, College Park Scholars
Mailing Address: Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
Department of Geology
Building 237, Room 1117
University of Maryland
College Park, MD 20742 USA