New Squamate classification

[Robin Leech]

The real irony is that molecular biology is still morphology,
micromorphology.
Anything we do that sets up characters or characteristics
for distinguishing one thing from another is morphology.
Robin Leech

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Grehan" <jgrehan at SCIENCEBUFF.ORG>
To: <TAXACOM at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU>
Sent: Friday, November 25, 2005 9:32 AM
Subject: Re: New Squamate classification



From: Taxacom Discussion List on behalf of Ken Kinman



Dear All,
      As usual, I disagree with Grehan's broad generalizations about
morphology trumping molecular data.

As 'usal' I'll have to correct Ken and point out that it not my general
position!

It is certainly unfair to suggest that "the authors don't even consider
morphology a science".  On the contrary, they go into some detail how their
molecular phylogeny is supported by morphological evidence (although it
correlates with morphological characters traditionally seen as homoplastic,
and characterizes some of the older characters as homoplastic instead).
Morphology is still seriously considered and different morphological
characters shown to be correlated with the molecular data.

I would argue, based on what Ken has said, that the author's position is
just what I said. Morphology is convenient when it supports DNA sequence
simialrities, and inconvenient when it does not. In the latter it is cast
aside.

      Therefore, if there is any major criticism to be leveled at this
paper, it is that they should not be too quick to dismiss a relationship
between varanids and snakes.  Since groups like mosasaurs and aigialosaurids
are extinct, this is something that paleontology will eventually settle, NOT
the molecularists.

The irony here is that is possible only if morphology can stand as a science
in its own right and not be automatically over-ruled by contradictory
sequence similarity. That is my basic position.

Otherwise, I think the molecular phylogeny is very informative and extremely
interesting.

It might be, although if it has no nececssary connection to morphology the
infrormation content may be problematic.

If we are going to criticize them, let's be more s
 pecific (not vague broad-strokes like morphology vs. molecular, which is
not very helpful).

The issues here are general as well as specific. I'm interested in the
general issue of morphology and sequence similarity. Ken is not.

John Grehan