Turning around

[John Grehan]

No I don't have a fixed idea that overall resemblance is bound to yield
a wildly incorrect phylogeny. My fixed idea is that overall resemblance
can yield an incorrect phylogeny that is only apparent when compared to
the results of an analysis of uniquely shared characters. So in the case
of the orangutan its relationship to humans is evidence in terms of
uniquely shared characters. It is not evidence in terms of overall
similarity - whether in morphology or DNA bases.

Yes most people these days might read plesiomorphies (or apomorphies
which is what I think is usually the case) off the phylogeny, but that
does not make it somehow automatically better (the argument of
mediocrity). I argue that their approach relies on overall similarity to
decide on the phylogeny that then somehow determines what characters are
derived. I'll stick to being "old fashioned" 'cladist' (or whatever
label one might want to give). Someone has to be the reactionary. Might
as well be me.

John Grehan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Don.Colless at csiro.au [mailto:Don.Colless at csiro.au]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 5:18 PM
> To: John Grehan
> Cc: taxacom at listserv.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: RE: Re: Turning around
> 
> 
> 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
> 
>