[Taxacom] Molecules vs Morphology

[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
> does not presupose subordination, on the contrary. 

Agreed. We agree on this. But the Jablonski paper did presuppose subordination of morphology to molecules.

> Each
> lineage is independent from the rest so you wouldn´t expect matching in
> this respect. 

Perhaps, but the point was that when congruence between molecular and morphological results it is not always congruent throughout. 

> Furthermore divergence of two lineages often is
> not a clean-cut split....expect disagreement between individual
> characters (homoplasy) with the "average" or congruence chosen as the
> "best" possible explanation.

No problem with this possibility
 
> I will assume that your definition and mine of subservient behaviour is
> different!

Maybe - but however one defines it, the authors clearly identify molecular, not morphological, data as having the ability to pinpoint characters that reliably capture phylogenetic relationships:

"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." 


John Grehan

> Best
> 
> Jason
> _________________________________________________________________
> Share your memories online with anyone you want.
> http://www.microsoft.com/middleeast/windows/windowslive/products/photos-
> share.aspx?tab=1
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 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