bjburger at AMNH.ORG
Fri Apr 12 12:27:28 CDT 2002
>> constructing phylogenetic hypotheses. In any case, regardless of the
>> nature of
>> the data or the form of analysis, one cannot identify a character as a
>> synapomorphy until a phylogenetic hypothesis has been made (i.e., the
>> been used to construct a phylogenetic tree).
I've noticed confused over these terms.
Synapomorphies = Derived characters that unite two groups into a
monophyletic group after a phylogenic analysis.
Is there another term for derived characters that are shared between two
groups, before a phylogenic analysis?
Like using the term homology?
Homology = Synapomorphy + Homoplasy??????????????????????
Most texts use these terms interchangably.
Homology = Synapomorphy
However, I always felt that homology was THE same character between two
Homology (truth) = Synapomorphy (hypothesis)
I once got chastized for listing shared derived characters as
synapomorphies, just like the beginning of this trend on Oragnutan
relationships and have always stuck to the saying "shared derived
[:-> Benjamin John Burger <-:]
[:-> Division of Paleontology <-:]
[:-> American Museum of Natural History <-:]
[:-> Central Park West at 79th Street NY, NY, USA <-:]
[:-> bjburger at amnh.org <-:]
[:-> http://paleo.amnh.org/bjburger <-:]
[:-> The AMNH fossil collection: http://paleo.amnh.org <-:]
More information about the Taxacom