[Taxacom] morphology in molecular phylogeny

[John Grehan]

I will agree with these observations 100%. I refer to the hominid
systematics as an extremely good example of really bad morphological
science. One sees this in particular for arguments about the
phylogenetic status of Homo floresciensis being made largely by
morphologists rather than systematists (the original article did not
even bother to identify synapomorphies for inclusion in Homo let alone
in connection with Homo erectus).

So for me the question comes down to whether molecular morphology (and
it is morphology, not genetics) and macro-molecular morphology are
co-equal branches of science. Some would say that the jury has already
decided in favor of an un-equal status.

Does anyone have figures on $ spent by NSF (or any other such
foundations)on molecular vs morphological systematics these days?

John Grehan



> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-
> bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Michael A. Ivie
> Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 12:32 PM
> To: Barry Roth
> Cc: TAXACOM
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] morphology in molecular phylogeny
> 
> Bad science is bad science, and happens in every field.  It is a
> reflection of the scientist, not the technique.  You and other cite
such
> examples for molecular workers.  Thomas Lincoln Casey was strictly a
> morphology-based worker, and perhaps the worst beetle taxonomist who
> ever lived (there are other candidates for this honor, all
> morphologists).  I myself am a morphological worker, and sometimes get
> frustrated with molecular work, but in this line of discussion, it
seems
> to be headed towards bad scientists tainting an entire technical
field.
> I know people who do good work in molecular systematics who are also
> excellent taxonomists.  I also know people who do terrible work in
> morphological systematics who are morphologists.
> 
> Mike
> 
> Barry Roth wrote:
> 
> >I know of one situation where samples, all identified as the same
> species, were submitted to molecular systematists, who proceeded to
report
> considerable diversity that "may well represent different species and
even
> a different genus."  They went on to declare the system a
"morphostatic
> radiation" (defined elsewhere as "considerable, rapid speciation with
low
> anatomical diversification" and "low levels of anatomical change").
But
> the morphological "stasis" was not documented (a single character
> mentioned as unreliable was one long known by taxonomists to have
little
> diagnostic value in the group in question).  I strongly suspected that
the
> samples included specimens that, had they been reviewed by competent
> taxonomists, would have been recognized as different species based on
> morphology.  I was later able to confirm this by examining a few of
the
> specimens that survived the analysis.  Fortunately, the "different
genus"
> was removed from the array that was later reported by
> > two of the original authors in an extended publication; but the
> "morphostatic radiation" remains a figment of ignored morphological
data.
> >
> >  Barry Roth
> >
> >Maarten Christenhusz <maachr at utu.fi> wrote:
> >  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.
> >
> >---------------------------------
> >Any questions?  Get answers on any topic at Yahoo! Answers. Try it
now.
> >_______________________________________________
> >Taxacom mailing list
> >Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> --
> __________________________________________________
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom mailing list
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom