[Taxacom] dinosaurs and wolves

Pierre Deleporte pierre.deleporte at univ-rennes1.fr
Wed Oct 3 14:27:33 CDT 2012


Hi Kirk,

just a question :
how do you propose to combine both classes of observations
for an epistemically meaningful phylogenetic explanation?
I mean the details of the procedure, and why so ...

not a trap, a real interrogation -
you know that I agree with your central point,
I'm just questioning what's the way out

in other words:
beyond denegation, what positive perspective?

Best,
Pierre



Le 03/10/2012 20:44, Kirk Fitzhugh a écrit :
> It might have been some consolation to the authors had they acknowledged
> that comparing 'molecular' and 'morphological' trees is epistemically
> meaningless. Then it's a matter of deciding whether or not explaining
> one class of observations is relevant to explaining another class of
> observations.
>
> Kirk
>
> On 10/3/2012 11:06 AM, Wolfgang Wuster wrote:
>> The paper itself ("Assembling the Squamate Tree of Life: Perspectives
>> from the Phenotype and the Fossil Record") is well worth reading,
>> containing a host of new morphological characters, and also discussing
>> the extreme lack of congruence between molecular and morphological data,
>> particularly in relation to the position of the Iguania in squamate
>> phylogenies.
>>
>> Wolfgang
>>
>>
>>> Hi Wolfgang,
>>>
>>>         I haven't seen the newest phylogeny (by Gauthier et al., 2012),
>>> but I assume that it further solidifies the general consensus that
>>> Pachyrhachis and relatives are macrostomatan snakes (not sister group
>>> to all snakes).  However, even that would not necessarily mean that
>>> they re-evolved legs.  Isn't there also a general consensus that it
>>> only indicates that snakes lost their legs numerous times (in
>>> different lineages)?
>>>
>>>                -------------Ken
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2012 07:47:21 +0100
>>>> From: w.wuster at bangor.ac.uk
>>>> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>>>> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] dinosaurs and wolves
>>>>
>>>> On 03/10/2012 04:58, Ken Kinman wrote:
>>>>> Stephen,
>>>>> I didn't say anything about reversals requiring reactivation of
>>> genes. I certainly know of no snakes or marine mammals reactivating
>>> leg genes and the reinvention of legs.
>>>> Actually, there is reasonable evidence that simoliophiid snakes
>>>> (Pachyrhachis, Haasiophis) may have re-evolved hind limbs, based on
>>>> their possession of these appendages and their nesting deep in the
>>>> ophidian phylogeny. See Gauthier et al., Bulletin of the Peabody Museum
>>>> of Natural History 53(1), April 2012.
>>>>
>>>> Wolfgang
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Dr. Wolfgang Wüster - Lecturer
>>>> School of Biological Sciences Bangor University
>>>> Environment Centre Wales
>>>> Bangor LL57 2UW Wales, UK
>>>> Tel: +44 1248 382301 Fax: +44 1248 382569
>>>> E-mail: w.wuster at bangor.ac.uk
>>>> http://pages.bangor.ac.uk/~bss166/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>


-- 
Pierre DELEPORTE
UMR6552 EthoS
Université Rennes 1
CNRS
Station Biologique
35380 PAIMPONT
tél (+33) 02 99 61 81 63
fax (+33) 02 99 61 81 88






More information about the Taxacom mailing list