[Taxacom] Position Announcement

Carlos Sarmiento cesarmiento at yahoo.com
Wed Oct 31 14:18:04 CDT 2007


I am glad this long discussion took another venue
since, as graduate from Dr. Sharkey┬┤s lab some time
ago, I saw the HYMatol project is combining molecular
AND morphological data in the analyses. He, and
several researchers of the HYMatol project are
Hymenopterists with a strong morphological background
who are considering the importance of other data as
evidence to check and, possibly clear up, problems
that previous morphological analyses have not been
enough to understand the relationships in the
Hymenoptera.



--- John Grehan <jgrehan at sciencebuff.org> wrote:

> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Richard Zander
> [mailto:Richard.Zander at mobot.org]
> > surviving ancestors, and especially the now almost
> universal practice
> > that statistical analysis of a data set can result
> in near statistical
> > certainty while a host of assumptions remain
> unchallenged or
> > unrecognized.
> 
> That seems to me to represent a major oversight in
> systematic theory.
> 
> > I note that the most recent issue of Taxon
> contains three letters to
> the
> > editor, one of them by myself, offering cogent
> arguments against
> > ignoring (or just mapping onto molecular
> cladograms) morphological
> data.
> 
> I'll take a look
> 
> > The remainder of the articles were largely of
> actual systematic
> studies
> > ignoring (or just mapping onto molecular
> cladograms) morphological
> data.
> 
> What an irony!
> 
> > To make any inroads on the molecular juggernaut,
> we must present
> actual
> > systematic studies that combine information on
> expressed traits and
> > molecular lineages in a manner that is competitive
> with molecular
> > systematics.
> 
> What constitutes a "manner that is competitive".
> There is currently no
> empirical foundation for combining information on
> expressed traits and
> molecular lineages. Morphology and molecules are in
> total contradiction
> when it comes to the living sistergroup of humans.
> Since the morphology
> is also congruent with the fossil record (i.e.
> fossil hominids also show
> human-orangutan apomorphies or purely orangutan
> features) I would argue
> that it is the molecular evidence that is in doubt,
> not the morphology.
> 
> > molecular traits is to avoid the gimmicks of
> monophyly and no
> surviving
> > ancestors.
> 
> Please clarify the gimmicks of monophyly and no
> surviving ancestors
> 
> John Grehan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom mailing list
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> 


Carlos E. Sarmiento-M.
Instituto de Ciencias Naturales
Universidad Nacional de Colombia
A. A. 52656, Bogota, Colombia

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 




More information about the Taxacom mailing list