[Taxacom] hominid challenge and Pavetta challenge

[John Grehan]

I made no referece to every case. However, if there is a general
principal that molecular evidence is the gold standard for phylogeny
when it provides 'strong' internal corroboration, then yes the
implication is that in general morphology is unreliable for any such
case.

John Grehan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-
> bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Stephen Thorpe
> Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 7:45 PM
> To: Barry Roth; Taxacom
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] hominid challenge and Pavetta challenge
> 
> > if we accept, on the basis of molecular results, that morphological
> evidence is unreliable
> NOT ENTIRELY UNRELIABLE IN EVERY CASE! Morpho- evidence is likely
> reasonably reliable in most cases. A few cases where morpho- evidence
> (allegedly) gives the wrong answer doesn't mean it is totally
unreliable
> in every case ...
> ________________________________________
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [taxacom-
> bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Barry Roth
[barry_roth at yahoo.com]
> Sent: Thursday, 24 September 2009 11:30 a.m.
> To: Taxacom
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] hominid challenge and Pavetta challenge
> 
> It's not up to me to answer on behalf of John, but I take his question
as
> a serious methodological one:  if we accept, on the basis of molecular
> results, that morphological evidence is unreliable, how can we turn
around
> and, in a case where molecular data are unavailable, accept the
available
> morphological evidence as trustworthy?
> 
> I suppose this could be justified as "you work with what you've got,"
and
> that is of course a familiar situation for paleontologists.  But if a
> whole modality of data is dismissed as unreliable, then you shouldn't
be
> able to cherry-pick the situations where you accept and trust it.  At
> least not if consistency -- rather than special pleading -- is
considered
> a virtue in phylogenetic analysis.
> 
> Barry Roth
> 
> --- On Wed, 9/23/09, Stephen Thorpe <s.thorpe at auckland.ac.nz> wrote:
> 
> 
> We have already been over this ground, John:
> There is less reliable evidence for establishing relationships of
fossil
> taxa (cf. extant taxa), both because no molecular evidence is
available,
> and also because less morphological evidence is available anyway! Tell
us
> something we don't know! It doesn't make it completely unreliable ...
> Stephen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 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