[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Turtle-Archosaur Affinity
Whoa. Have a good long look at figure 2. Those numbers for "Other" are,
shall we say, impressive; I'd really like to know what "Other" means.
as well as for a caecilian-salamander sister relationship within
> Lissamphibia, with Lissamphibia potentially paraphyletic.
Awwww. Too bad Jason Anderson officially stopped supporting the
hypothesis of modern-amphibian polyphyly in his talk at the SVP meeting.
Robert Carroll might be delighted...
Seriously now: I think this paper confirms my opinion, formed from
papers on bilaterian phylogeny, that whole genomes are as prone to
long-branch attraction or whatever as single genes are. I'll have to
cite the paper, but I won't take any of its competing results as strong
evidence for anything.
What could be interesting would be data that can only be derived when
whole genomes are known, but that behave more like morphological
characters. Gene loss (presence/absence) data are one option that comes
to mind (they support Ecdysozoa, while whole genomes didn't last time I
looked, which was about 10 years ago). Of course, LINE and SINE
insertions are another.