Turning around

[Richard.Zander at MOBOT.ORG]

I would rephrase "what most systematists believe" as the choice between:

1. Inference, using mostly evolutionarily neutral sequence data, of nested
sets of events of genetic isolation following the Biological Species
Concept.

is more important than, yea trumps,

2. Inference of ancestral trees from shared morphological apparently
evolutionarily adaptive traits of organisms.

I figure most systematists don't want anything to do with a choice of this
kind. Let the theorists fight it out, and just continue with salvage
biodiversity study. The whole earth is going to hell and there is no money
to support needed basic projects.

Right?


______________________
Richard H. Zander
Bryology Group, Missouri Botanical Garden
PO Box 299, St. Louis, MO 63166-0299 USA
richard.zander at mobot.org <mailto:richard.zander at mobot.org>
Voice: 314-577-5180;  Fax: 314-577-0828
Websites
Bryophyte Volumes of Flora of North America:
http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/bfna/bfnamenu.htm
Res Botanica:
http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/index.htm
Shipping address for UPS, etc.:
Missouri Botanical Garden
4344 Shaw Blvd.
St. Louis, MO 63110 USA

-----Original Message-----
From: John Grehan [mailto:jgrehan at SCIENCEBUFF.ORG]
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 12:23 PM
To: TAXACOM at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU
Subject: Re: [TAXACOM] Turning around

I don't have any 'proven' solution to the DNA base and morphology
contradiction.



There is at least reason to argue that the DNA sequence stuff is phenetics
rather than cladistics and so is as potentially misleading as overall
similarity of morphology (which also connects humans with African apes).



When it comes to systematists I am hardly preaching to the choir. Most
systematists seem to believe that DNA sequences overrule contradictory
morphology.



John Grehan