[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: RÃ(c)p : Postâ€“K-Pg Radiation of Placentals -- open
Thomas R. Holtz, Jr. <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> The morphology-only trees all place Rodhocetus as a stem-cetacean.
>> (The parsimony-based trees are weird in putting Artiocetus closer to
>> the crown that Basilosaurus, though.) What's going on here?
> My suspicion: the molecular data are forcing the position of certain taxa,
> which are fixing the polarity/distribution of morphological traits in ways
> that morphology-only trees do not, which are pulling Rodho. out of its
> proper... er, its morphology-based position
Also, having the aquatic _Rodhocetus_ as a stem-euungulate implies
either that (1) both artiodactyls and perissodactyls evolved from an
aquatic ancestor; or (2) an aquatic lifestyle evolved independently in
_Rodhocetus_ and cetaceans. Neither hypothesis seems especially
plausible. Not to mention how it complicates the evolution of the
artiodactyl ankle. The molecular data is undoubtedly the culprit in
shifting _Rodhocetus_ from its morphology-based position.