[Taxacom] real molecular data

John Grehan jgrehan at sciencebuff.org
Thu Nov 13 13:02:11 CST 2008

I am aware that they were looking at ordinal relationships, and that
other segments of DNA might give more character states within the large
bodied hominioids. However, they did present the tree and I was
inerested to see what was in it. Regardless of their looking at ordinal
relationships, they did include more sequences and more primates for
comparison with large bodied hominoids than most other papers I have
looked at to date.

If you can cite what you would consider a definiting molecular study for
humans and chimps I would be interested.

John Grehan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-
> bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Karl Magnacca
> Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 1:49 PM
> To: TAXACOM at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] real molecular data
> On Thu, November 13, 2008 5:39 pm, John Grehan wrote:
> > OK - just to prove I am nuts, I scanned every one of 21,507 sequence
> > positions for coding data in the Prasad et al 2008 study (Confirming
> > phylogeny of mammals by use of large comparative sequence data sets
> > Biol. Evol. 25: 1795-1808). The coding sequences produced (by
> > analysis) a human-chimpanzee clade followed by gorilla and
> You are nuts.  You're looking at a dataset that was chosen to look at
> ordinal-level relationships.  Any sequence that would provide
> significant numbers of synapomorphies for human-orangutan (whatever
> relationship is) would be useless at the level they're looking at.
> That's why the human-chimp-gorilla clade they showed had no support.
> Karl
> =====================
> Karl Magnacca
> Postdoctoral Researcher
> Department of Zoology
> Trinity College, Dublin 2
> Ireland
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom mailing list
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom

More information about the Taxacom mailing list