[Taxacom] morphology in molecular phylogeny

[Federico C. Ocampo]

Dear all,

I'd recommend you the reading of:
Crisci, J. V. 2006. One-Dimensional Systematist: Perils in a time of  
Steady Progress. Syst. Bot. 31(1): 217-221.

Federico


On Jan 19, 2007, at 9:03 AM, Maarten Christenhusz wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> To continue the discussion about the destruction of evolutionary  
> morphology in modern biology and systematics, I also think it is  
> unbelievable that anyone can do taxonomy on a group solely based on  
> molecular data, without taking the morphology into account. I would  
> think that the samples used were identified by someone (who  
> seldomly gets acknowledged for doing so correctly) using  
> morphological characters (provided in keys or species  
> descriptions). Many moleular people just believe the identification  
> given with the specimen, without checking if these are correctly  
> identified.
> I also noticed that mostly when a phylogeny at the family level is  
> attempted, the type genus is neglected, and these families have not  
> always been tested for monophyly. This can be seen even more  
> commonly at the generic level, where at least the type species of  
> the genus should be included, before any taxonomic conclusions can  
> be drawn.
>
> Maarten Christenhusz
> University of Turku, Finland
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom mailing list
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom



------------------------------------------------
Federico C. Ocampo, PhD.
Division of Entomology
University of Nebraska State Museum