[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)



David Marjanovic wrote-

> > In Mammalia, they don't have Ungulata.
>
> Neither does any morphological analysis (too small as they all are at
> the moment). Only romerograms have Ungulata.

Not true.  Both Shoshani and McKenna (1998) and Asher et al. (2003) used 
morphological analyses and found Ungulata... and Anagalida, and Volitantia.  
Asher et al.'s is actually worse in that it has pangolins sister to anteaters, 
xenarthrans sister to aardvarks, no Cetartiodactyla, carnivorans the basalmost 
placentals, insectivores by Glires.... ugh.

> > You never see more genes and sequenced taxa leading to molecular
> > results that resemble the traditional morphological results after
> > all. The changes always seem to go one way.
>
> Since 2001, yes, with a few minor exceptions perhaps.

It's those minor exceptions that I'd be interested in hearing about.

Mickey Mortimer