[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Blogging SVP



From: Ben Creisler
bcreisler@gmail.com

There's a new paper out about the origin of bats that may be of interest:

Georgia Tsagkogeorga, Joe Parker, Elia Stupka, James A. Cotton &
Stephen J. Rossiter (2013)
Phylogenomic Analyses Elucidate the Evolutionary Relationships of Bats.
Current Biology 23 :1-6
doi:  10.1016/j.cub.2013.09.014
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(13)01130-5

Note that the pdf is free when you click on icon.

http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0960982213011305/1-s2.0-S0960982213011305-main.pdf?_tid=c1b222fc-429f-11e3-893c-00000aab0f6c&acdnat=1383274146_958ed14d6817cddfbe1e69e1d2688952

Molecular phylogenetics has rapidly established the evolutionary
positions of most major mammal groups, yet analyses have repeatedly
failed to agree on that of bats (order Chiroptera). Moreover, the
relationship among the major bat lineages has proven equally
contentious, with ongoing disagreements about whether echolocating
bats are paraphyletic or a true group having profound implications for
whether echolocation evolved once or possibly multiple times. By
generating new bat genome data and applying model-based phylogenomic
analyses designed to accommodate heterogeneous evolutionary processes,
we show that—contrary to recent suggestions—bats are not closely
related to odd-toed ungulates but instead have a more ancient origin
as sister group to a large clade of carnivores, ungulates, and
cetaceans. Additionally, we provide the first genome-scale support
showing that laryngeal echolocating bats are not a true group and that
this paraphyly is robust to their position within mammals. We suggest
that earlier disagreements in the literature may reflect model
misspecification, long-branch artifacts, poor taxonomic coverage, and
differences in the phylogenetic markers used. These findings are a
timely reminder of the relevance of experimental design and careful
statistical analysis as we move into the phylogenomic era.

On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 7:49 PM, Tim Williams <tijawi@gmail.com> wrote:
> David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at> wrote:
>
>
>> *Chriacus* and bats are sister-groups,
>
>
> Yikes.  This may have major repercussions for the origin of flight in
> Chiroptera.  The scansorial abilities of _Chriacus_ are well attested
> - it's been compared to a modern coati (_Nasua_) in its arboreal
> habits (Rose, KD, 1987; Science 236: 314-316).  _Chriacus_ has
> traditionally been considered an arctocyonid... so it makes sense that
> the "arctocyonids" are scattered to the four winds in this analysis.
>
>
>> *Brontosaurus* and *Eobrontosaurus* were resurrected today
>
>
> I didn't know _Eobrontosaurus_ was ever dead (although it was at one
> stage synonymized with _Camarasaurus_, e.g., Upchurch et al., 2004;
> although see dml.cmnh.org/2005Feb/msg00289.html).
>
>
> But I'm surprised that _Brontosaurus_ was brought back to life
> (appropriate for Halloween?).
>
>
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Tim