Alleles and phylogenetic results
jgrehan at SCIENCEBUFF.ORG
Wed Jan 25 12:34:47 CST 2006
Due to age and indifference I never caught up with the popularity of internet abbreviations such as FTR - no metter how obvious they may be. My brain can't even try to figure them out.
But my comments were of a general nature - i.e. that widespread assumptio that DNA simialrities are not phylogenetically problematic and therefore overide any contradictory morphology. If in your case you had corroborating morphology great. If youa re saying you could not find evnought morphological characters to sort out 60 species and therefore used DNA then fine (assuming you had no incongruence between the two).
From: Taxacom Discussion List on behalf of Karl Magnacca
Sent: Wed 1/25/2006 12:06 PM
To: TAXACOM at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU
Subject: Re: [TAXACOM] Alleles and phylogenetic results
On 25 Jan 2006 at 11:40, John Grehan wrote:
> Perhaps some more good reasons why one should not automatically assume
> DNA simialrity as the necessary falsifier of incongruent morhological
> similarities? John Grehan
FTR, I managed to find a whopping 14 morphological characters for the 60
species I was analyzing in that example.
Karl Magnacca, USGS-BRD, 808-985-6076
PO Box 11, Hawaii Natl. Park, HI 96718
"Democracy used to be a good thing, but now it has
gotten into the wrong hands." --Sen. Jesse Helms
More information about the Taxacom