[Taxacom] morphology and molecules again

[John Grehan]

- 

 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-

> bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Jason Mate

 

 

> Congruence is congruence. A

> question is posed, is morphology useful/reliable to infer a phylogeny.

> Result, yes, comparable to molecular data. 

 

But that's the problem. Its match with molecular data says nothing about
the usefulness or reliability of morphology unless one assumes in the
first place that molecular data is useful/reliable. As said, congruence
is congruence, but that of itself is uninformative.

 

For all we know they are

 

> both useless because 

 

 

True.

 

> Still congruence. Analysis of either data kind using comparable
methods

> yields congruent results. No diff.

 

But its not total congruence

 

> Only in

> the placement of one taxon onto which too much attention is placed

> considering that it is highly inbred and therefore genetically
extinct.

 

?????

 

> I am not going to argue for either camp on the topic of Hominids but

 

But is it a case of molecules vs morphology. If that cannot be argued
then there is no argument to be made.

 

> The

> authors have to compare morphology to some other kind of data. There
is

> no assumption on their part. 

 

Yes there is - otherwise the authors would have not basis for arguing
from that 'congruence' that morphology is reliable.

 

Maybe the journalist has a bias in favour

> of genetic data but then again you can't expect journalists to be

> knowledgable in taxonomy or anything else really. 

 

What journalist? The quotes were from authors, and I read the published
paper. Here's the quote again: 

 

"Increasing availability of molecular data can help develop new
approaches (propaganda statement] by pinpointing characters that
reliability capture phylogenetic relationships versus those consistently
subject to homoplasy." 

 

There you have it. It's actually quite explicit - one must look to
molecules to reliably determine what morphological features are
reliable!!!! This is pure propaganda perpetrated over the last couple of
decades and, in my opinion, has no necessary empirical foundation. It
seems to be grounded in faith in the law of large numbers (=faith based
phylogeny?).

 

John Grehan

 

 

In any case I think

> most taxonomists/phylogeneticists are more careful now. Of course I

> work with dung beetles so maybe it hasn't trickled up.

> 

> 

> Best

> 

> Jason

> 

> _________________________________________________________________

> Drag n' drop-Get easy photo sharing with Windows Live(tm) Photos.

> 

> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowslive/products/photos.aspx

> _______________________________________________

> 

> Taxacom Mailing List

> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu

> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom

> 

> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of

> these methods:

> 

> (1) http://taxacom.markmail.org

> 

> Or (2) a Google search specified as:

> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here