genetic vs morphological trace of phylogeny
pierre.deleporte at UNIV-RENNES1.FR
Mon Apr 5 15:06:56 CDT 2004
At 22:07 03/04/2004 +1200, John Grehan wrote :
>(...) Unfortunately (perhaps) there is no
>recipe for making a predetermined choice when DNA sequence similarities and
>morphological synapomorphies are incongruent.
But fortunately, no predetermined choice is needed. The current practice
is, not to use only morphological similarities (which are not in themselves
totally congruent) or only molecular ones (themeselves not totally
congruent either), but to combine all available, and potentially relevant,
information (molecular data sets + morphological ones), which you still
seem highly reluctant to do in practice.
This can be done through all kinds of analyses: cladistic under various
possible weighting schemes, and also maximum likelihood under a variety of
models (a few recent papers deal with the last procedure)...
There are lasting problems as for which models of character evolution
should be implemented, both for morphoilogy or molecules (see many other
threads), but I never read a convincing argument that some potential source
of phylogenetic information should be completely discarded.
Ignoring molecular information for the Pongo question is undefendable. You
can easily join with a molecularist and perform a complete analysis of all
available potential evidence. If you want to. I think this would be a more
adequate presentation of the present state of phylogenetics than
considering morphological evidence in isolation.
CNRS UMR 6552 - Station Biologique de Paimpont
F-35380 Paimpont FRANCE
Téléphone : 02 99 61 81 66
Télécopie : 02 99 61 81 88
More information about the Taxacom