chloroplast and other genes (was Lucy in Newsweek)

Don.Colless at CSIRO.AU Don.Colless at CSIRO.AU
Fri Apr 2 15:41:49 CST 2004

Ken Kinman wrote:
     I have come to a similar conclusion.  Chloroplast genes are
probably generally less reliable than nuclear genes for phylogeny
reconstruction (although there are probably exceptions).  With respect
to angiosperms in particular, I think phylogenies based on chloroplast
genes may have been stretched beyond their reliability in some cases.

I'm always a bit mystified when folk write about certain techniques or types of data, as being more or less "reliable", etc. for phylo. reconstruction. On what basis are these judgements being made. Does someone have access to the phylo. 'truth' for this purpose? Or are they just looking at more traditional results? Or is it a gut-feeling? (I personally use the last!)

Don Colless,
Div of Entomology, CSIRO,
GPO Box 1700,
Canberra. 2601.
Email: don.colless at
Tuz li munz est miens envirun


More information about the Taxacom mailing list