[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Eufalconimorphae and homoplasy in mol-phyl
- To: <email@example.com>
- Subject: Re: Eufalconimorphae and homoplasy in mol-phyl
- From: Alexander Suh <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2011 00:23:48 +0200 (CEST)
- Authentication-results: msg-ironport0.usc.edu; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
- In-reply-to: <CADHyUaR7xfK3NUZv7X62rjVZQ=nmZy6OtK2e76d+ZaASP3ZEAQ@mail.gmail.com>
- Reply-to: email@example.com
- Sender: owner-DINOSAUR@usc.edu
I'm sorry for causing confusion - I meant Columbiformes sensu stricto
(Columbidae + Raphidae, although for the latter there are no nuclear sequences
available). I admit that I wasn't quite aware that "traditionally",
Pteroclidae were also included in this taxon (maybe because the latter were
shifting a lot in the trees of different sequence analyes)...
For looking at the relationships of Mesitornithidae, Pteroclidae and other
early-branching Neoaves, I assume that retroposon data "could" help, but only
once a (partial) genome of one of these has been sequenced (= a lot of new
marker candidates and many more well-alignable genomic regions for
cross-species comparisons). Unfortunately, the current amount of whole genome
and partial genome data is not enough for tackling these branches (given that
you strive to find several, unconflicting markers in order to find a
conclusion that "helps").
David Černý schrieb am 2011-09-11:
> Alexander Suh <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > again, I have a few comments - sorry about that. :-)
> I, for one, enjoy your comments. :o)
> > Looking at the retroposons (in an alignment created from the
> > sequences of
> > Hackett et al. 2008), there are the following in beta-fibrinogen
> > intron 7:
> > - a shared insertion of a CR1-H-related retroposon in the sampled
> > representatives of Columbiformes
> Just a question, is that the traditional Columbiformes (Columbidae +
> Pteroclidae) or Hackett et al.'s "Columbiformes sensu lato"
> (Pteroclidae + (Mesitornithidae + Columbidae))? I am asking because
> the position of mesites is one of the few cases where Hackett et al.
> (2008) did not support the results of Ericson et al. (whose analysis
> recovered a sister group relationship between mesites and
> _Mirandornithes_). Perhaps retroposons could help...
> David Černý