lynn.raw at VIRGIN.NET
Sat Feb 1 01:04:59 CST 2003
Thanks, now I see. Does this mean that the genetic mechanism controlling the
presence of wings in these insects was not lost but merely switched off. As
a result the subsequent loss of the gene(s) that switch it off would allow
wings to reappear in some lineages.
It seems to be far different to the multiple independent conversions from
oviparity to viviparity in vertebrates where such a simple mechanism seems
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dr. Mark A. Metz" <mametz at PSU.EDU>
To: <TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG>
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 7:49 PM
> Hmmmmmm. Perhaps the graphic was not completely explanatory without an
> outgroup included.
> I think the graphic is only phasmid (ingroup) taxa. Since Whiting's
> hypothesis is that the basal phasmid was wingless the basal node carries
> wingless state. But the ancestor to the Phasmida is winged (not depicted
> the graphic) so the phasmids lost flight (synapomorphy for phasmida on
> Whiting tree), then regained it four times, with two reversals.
> Make sense?
> Dr. Mark A. Metz
> Assistant Curator
> Frost Entomological Museum
> The Pennsylvania State University
> Department of Entomology
> 501 Agricultural Sciences & Industries (ASI)
> University Park, Pennsylvania 16802 USA
> (814) 863-2865
> (814) 865-3048 fax
> mametz at psu.edu
> Frost Museum:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Lynn Raw" <lynn.raw at VIRGIN.NET>
> To: <TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG>
> Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 1:48 PM
> Subject: Re: [TAXACOM] Time to update taxonomy?
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > christian thompson wrote:
> > > DNA taxonomy is wonderful, if you believe everything you read in
> > > et cetera. A week ago it proved that species can learn to fly again
> > > after they lost their wings!
> > I am puzzled. Is this illustration, "the big wing switch"on the link
> > from the Nature article mentioned?
> > http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993269
> > If so, can anyone explain to me just where wings were lost and regained.
> > I see four separate origins of wings and two subsequent losses but no
> > regaining of wings after they were lost. I haven't read the article but
> > shown the cladogram (in an article in New Scientist) by a colleague who
> > asked this same question.
> > Some simple explanation would be appreciated. After all these
> > journals can hardly be wrong, can they?
> > Lynn Raw
> > London, UK
More information about the Taxacom