[Taxacom] Bolboceratinae or Bolboceratidae

[Michael A. Ivie]

This whole issue is morphing away from reality because it is taking 
place in an information vacuum that is over-simplified for this 
setting.  The Browne and Scholtz morphological dataset on the scarabs 
was mainly from a single character system, the hind wing articulation, 
hind wing base and hind wing venation.  This is far, far from a complete 
use of all morphological available data, as there are very large numbers 
of traditional adult characters and all larval information left out of 
this analysis.  It is, however, an excellent piece of work, and the best 
thing done so far, thus is cited as the basis for the current status of 
the classification.  That it will be modified is certain, and not 
unforeseen by Browne and Scholtz themselves. The sources of this 
modification will come from many data sources.  One that is on-going is 
The Beetle Tree of Life Project, of which Dave Hawk's molecular data set 
will be a part (see <http://insects.oeb.harvard.edu/ATOL/people.htm>), 
involves a very large morphological component as well as huge molecular 
collections.  Grehan's assumption that the coming reclassification will 
be purely molecular-based is because of a lack of the whole picture, a 
picture not easily seen from what has been posted here.  Hawks et al 
will need to publish their molecular phylogeny so as to make the data 
available, and give new insights into the interpretation of the data of 
others, as did Browne and Scholtz.  New mophological sets will also be 
published, as well as whole-evidence ones.  We will all then argue about 
the various trees in search of agreement, true and beauty. That is how 
we work, but no single-system tree is expected to be the final word.  To 
jump to the conclusion that beetle people would use a single data-type 
for an entire classification underestimates the superiority of the 
coleopterist community. Since Yanega understands this, he might have 
left out the details needed to support his conclusions, considering them 
obvious. ;-)

Mike

Doug Yanega wrote:

>I'll try not to belabor this, but, when John Grehan wrote:
>
>  
>
>>"WILL" sounds a bit like prophecy. Just because the molecular results
>>don't match morphology does not mean the molecular results are
>>necessarily more correct.
>>    
>>
>
>I am far - quite far, in fact - from an uncritical supporter of 
>molecular systematics. Not all molecular data sets are created equal, 
>however. The genes and gene regions selected, the competence of the 
>sequencing and alignment, the thoroughness of taxon sampling...all 
>are factors that can lead to a molecular dataset being either pure 
>gold, or absolute rubbish. In the present case, the molecular work is 
>excellent in all respects, while the morphological dataset is, 
>ironically, highly suspect, including numbers of characters whose 
>homology hypotheses (i.e., character coding) are virtually impossible 
>to understand, let alone replicate (esp. the wing articulation and 
>genitalic character sets - I cannot believe that any two scientists 
>could independently arrive at the same codings that Browne & Scholtz 
>did).
>
>  
>
>> > Morphology alone is not sufficient in this case,
>>
>>Is this a transcendental truth (i.e. morphology will always be
>>ambiguous) or contingent upon current knowledge?
>>    
>>
>
>I said "in this case" for a reason. The reason is that, despite a 
>trend of an opposite nature, sometimes morphological data sets 
>contain more noise than signal, while some molecular datasets give 
>excellent and well-supported resolution rather than masses of 
>polytomies. In this case, the molecular work has the upper hand (and 
>yes, this is only my opinion). Show me a case where the molecular 
>work is based on COI, for example, and I'll probably have exacly the 
>opposite reaction - I, and others, have very little faith in this 
>gene (at least as applied to insects), and if I see a conflict 
>between a COI tree and a morphology tree, I'm likely to side with the 
>morphology until and unless convinced otherwise.
>
>  
>
>>It sometimes seems that the more attention given to any group the more
>>contentious and controversial it becomes.
>>    
>>
>
>I suspect it depends mostly upon the kind of people who are paying 
>attention to a group. Of course, one might argue that the more people 
>working on a group, the more likely it is that at least one of them 
>will fall short in some respect, thus engendering "controversy".
>
>Peace,
>  
>

-- 
__________________________________________________
NOTE NEW ADDRESS:

Michael A. Ivie, Ph.D., F.R.E.S.

For Postal Service Delivery:            For FedEx, UPS or Freight Delivery:

Montana Entomology Collection      Montana Entomology Collection - MSU
Montana State University                Marsh Labs, Room 50
P.O. Box 173020                           1901 S. 19th Ave, Room 50
Bozeman, MT 59717-3020            Bozeman, MT 59717
USA                                              USA

(406) 994-4610 (voice)
(406) 994-6029 (FAX)
mivie at montana.edu