[Taxacom] SUSPECT Re: Molecules vs Morphology

[Richard Zander]

Well, okay, consider this cladogram of morphology for carbonaria, typica and another typical-sort of Peppered Moth:
 
((Sooty, Pepper1) Pepper2) . . . Pepper3 
 
We need three Peppered Moth exemplars to establish the paraphyletic Pepper group from which Sooty is a macroevolutionary product, or microevolutionary product if one does not consider it quite a species. 
 
Sooooo . . . if we envoke the environment as a part of an extended genome, we can make a cladogram of traits of the environment thusly:
((Soot, ClearAir1) ClearAir2) . . . ClearAir3 where ClearAir is paraphyletic. 
 
How can anyone argue that the environment is not an important element in evolution? It is even phylogramable.
 
_______________________
Richard H. Zander
Missouri Botanical Garden
PO Box 299
St. Louis, MO 63166 U.S.A.
richard.zander at mobot.org
 

________________________________

From: Bob Mesibov [mailto:mesibov at southcom.com.au]
Sent: Sun 8/16/2009 8:51 PM
To: Richard Zander; mblanco at flmnh.ufl.edu; jfmate at gmail.com
Cc: TAXACOM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] SUSPECT Re: Molecules vs Morphology



I've been scratching my head trying to think of A Wonderful Example over which Zander could debate with Blanco and Mate. No light globe has suddenly switched on, but peppered moths ain't bad:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution

If a molecular phylogeneticist arrived from Mars and sampled typica, carbonaria and another form, he/she/it could build a simply elegant and well-supported 3-terminal tree with suitable gene sequences showing the evolution of carbonaria from a typica-like ancestor. Great science, pity about missing the rest of the story.

On the other hand, which bits of the story correspond with Zander's 'envirosome'?
--
Dr Robert Mesibov