[Taxacom] Questions on hybridization paper

John Grehan jgrehan at sciencebuff.org
Mon May 22 12:07:17 CDT 2006


Richard has it right in that I am interested in some controversial
issues - of if they are not controversial in themselves I have no
hesitation to bring up some controversial aspects that interest me. This
inevitably puts my views at odds with most on the list and I accept that
reality. And as I anticipated, my characterization of the hybridization
theory was sticking my neck out and perhaps invited the kind of response
(or non-response) it got. If anyone takes issue with my positions or
views with respect to referred material I am always happy to oblige.

My first look at the paper seems to confirm my earlier inferences, but I
will hold off until it's read in more detail. I noticed in the Methods
section that they refer to sequences from a spider monkey, a gorilla, an
orangutan, and a macaque, but I did not see reference to a chimpanzee.
If someone could point out what I have overlooked I would be most
grateful.

The authors use distance measures which I understand to be phenetic
(i.e. measures of overall similarity) rather than cladistic measures and
therefore the similarities could well represent primitive retentions
rather than actually phylogenetic sequence. It is my understanding that
in recognition of this problem that other sequence theorists adopted the
'cladistic' approach through outgroup rooting. Can anyone comment on
that?

John Grehan







More information about the Taxacom mailing list