Turning around

[Don.Colless at CSIRO.AU]

Dear John,

You seem to have a fixed idea that overall resemblance is bound to yield a wildly incorrect phylogeny. Not so, as I demonstrated many years ago - although it may be imperfect (and what method isn't?). A phenogram is at least worth considering, especially if regarded as an unrooted phylogeny. Also, your Hennigian insistence on a priori identification of plesiomorphic states is, to say the least, a bit old fashioned. These days, most folk read the plesimorphies off the phylogeny 

Don Colless,
Div of Entomology, CSIRO,
GPO Box 1700,
Canberra. 2601.
Email: don.colless at csiro.au
Tuz li munz est miens envirun

-----Original Message-----
From:   Taxacom Discussion List on behalf of John Grehan
Sent:   Thu 2/23/2006 2:22 AM
To:     TAXACOM at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU
Cc:	
Subject:             Re: 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