[Taxacom] SUSPECT: Re: Primates (was: burn out)

[Richard Zander]

Yes, paraphyletic groups have no phylogenetic existence, and are a
collection of "primitive retentions." But a paraphyletic Pongidae would
be evolutionarily informative (ancestor-descendant) about ancestral
morphology though not phylogenetically (sister-group) informative. 

I would not monkey around with this, of course, unless there was some
decent support for a molecularly paraphyletic Pongidae, but if there
were, support for a deeply shared ancestor through nonmonophyly would be
a good scientific discovery. This does depend on interpretation. Dare I
accuse John Grehan of orthodoxy? 

*****************************
Richard H. Zander 
Voice: 314-577-0276
Missouri Botanical Garden
PO Box 299
St. Louis, MO 63166-0299 USA
richard.zander at mobot.org
Web sites: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/
and http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/bfna/bfnamenu.htm
Non-post deliveries to:
Missouri Botanical Garden, 4344 Shaw Blvd., St. Louis, MO 63110
*****************************


-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
[mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of John Grehan
Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 7:09 AM
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: SUSPECT: Re: [Taxacom] Primates (was: burn out)


As for the paraphyletic 'Pongidae' it has no phylogenetic existence. If
one wants to give a formal taxonomic name to a collectino of primitive
retentions then ok for those who want to, but its otherwise
uninforamtive.

John Grehan