[Taxacom] FW: Fwd: Re: base alignment
jgrehan at sciencebuff.org
Tue Aug 29 08:02:52 CDT 2006
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Grehan
> Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 9:02 AM
> To: 'pierre deleporte'
> Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Fwd: Re: base alignment
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: pierre deleporte [mailto:pierre.deleporte at univ-rennes1.fr]
> > This is exactly what I mean, and this can only come from a previous
> > analysis at a larger level (check "outside" for the presence
> > these characters), without entering into the details of the ingroup.
> > this can be done by hand, or with the help of compatibility analysis
> > computer programs ("unique to ingroup" exactly means "no homoplasy
> > the ingroup as a whole and some outgroups" - just check by yourself)
> I understand homoplasy to refer only to characters incongruent with a
> selected phylogeny. So if one has not done the phylogeny of
> within the ingroup yet, it is not possible to identify homoplasy for
> characters involved with ingroup relationships. Of course selecting
> derived character states requires a previous analysis of some kind to
> establish the outgroup and the monophyly of the ingroup.
> > >hence the need for an analytical procedure to then
> > >determine which cluster of putatively derived characters is best
> > >supported (whether through parsimony or any other tree building
> > >procedure one might use).
> > OK, but it would simply seem illogical that you impose "unique to
> > ingroup" at the beginning (constituting the data matrix of
> > characters considering the ingroup as a whole versus outgropups),
> > you relax this condition when dealing with "inside the group"
> > Do you really propose such a self-contradictory approach? Or will
> > use compatibility analysis of the ingroup in order to fiond the best
> > supported clade on the basis of the larger clique of completely
> > characters inside the group at stake?
> Nothing illogical about restricting characters to those unique to the
> ingroup to study relationships between members of the ingroup. Of
> that rests on the assumption that the ingroup is monophyletic. Of
> that assumption rests on accepting evidence and it could be wrong. In
> case of the orangutan, this is an example of a genus that has widely
> accepted as the outgroup to humans and African apes. By analyzing the
> derived character states of orangutans, humans, and African apes
> larger monophyletic clades (great apes), one finds that the orangutan
> not the outgroup to humans and African apes at all.
> > Your not using a computer program does not help to understand
> > is your procedure. But you an describe it as well: how do you
> > the ingroup?
> I don't need a computer program to recognize that there are 26
> substantiated derived features for humans and orangutans and only 8
> humans and both Africana apes, and apparently ZERO for humans and
> chimpanzees. However, using the same parsimony analysis used by those
> supporting the chimpanzee theory one can corroborate what one can
> count. Its not published yet, but will be.
> > Don't you think it could help that you use standard acception of the
> > instead? Like "compatibility analysis" instead of "cladistic
> > which makes no sense for any phylogenetician I can think of?
> You make a lot of claims about what is "standard acceptance". Perhaps
> are right in such claims, perhaps not. Either way, my approach seems
> ok with at least some cladists (or at least they have not indicated
> kind of confusion or objections that Pierre raises). Perhaps it is in
> nature, since I had no problem accepting Croizat's deviation from
> (Darwinian) practice and terminology in biogeography.
> > To the contrary, nobody in the Albert et al. book talks of
> > characters"... and nobody in "Cladistics" or "Systematic biology" as
> > well...
> OK - then I am the exception. I am unique. Pierre will just have to
> used to it.
> > >I don't have any lasting difficulties understanding cladistic
> > >or discussing with colleagues. People seem to understand my
> > >well enough, and visa versa. Whether or not we might agree or not
> > >another matter.
> > I really don't think so.
> Pierre and anyone else is welcome to disagree. I agree to disagree.
> If so, this is clearly
> > inconsistent, because your results will possibly be different
> > the level at which you are delineating the "ingroup" versus
> > compatibility analysis outside, and standard cladistic inside.
> Yes that is a possibility. However, it's pretty remote in the
> case. I can appreciate that computationally things may get pretty
> complicated if one gets out a few taxa and the same character states
> turning up. This has been a problem where the outgroup for the human-
> African ape relationship has been limited to orangutans or gibbons. By
> taking in at least ALL the OW monkeys I have quite an extensive
> If I extend to all monkey, or all primates one has an even better
> representation. There are a few characters that turn up in the same
> once all primates are considered. For example, ischial callosities are
> absent from NW monkeys and prosimians and so this might be considered
> derived character along with humans and orangutans. I have chosen to
> regard the human and orangutan feature as derived. I suppose an
> theorist would not take that approach and use outgroup as well as
> analysis at the same time. I admit that I do not get into such
> computational issues and will leave that for others.
> > Otherwise you'd be logically consistent, isn't it?
> In the end all methods are logically inconsistent. In the end the
> for me is whether or not orangutans and humans are most closely
> not, and whether the widespread assumption that DNA base similarities
> the last word on evolutionary replationships.
> John Grehan
Taxacom mailing list
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
More information about the Taxacom