[Taxacom] Phylogenetic game

Mon Dec 13 20:19:19 CST 2010

They are if you want them to be, they are not if you don't. 

That's my overly simplistic take.

There appear to be sufficient discontinuities in the presence or absence of various characters between Neanderthals and modern humans to warrant a distinction in that respect, whether or not there was some viable interbreeding taking place.

Aside from their status, their biogeography seems interesting in that there appears to be a vicariant differentiation of the Neanderthals with respect to humans that later became obscured by subsequent dispersal of the latter into the former habitat. A colleague of mine has suggested Neanderthals are primarily arboreal inhabitants (even though they could get around on the ground just fine) and that their demise was linked to a decline in forest cover over their former range.

John Grehan

________________________________

From: Cristian Ruiz Altaba [mailto:cruizaltaba at dgmambie.caib.es] 
Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 3:01 PM
To: Richard Zander; John Grehan; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Phylogenetic game

This issue is most relevant to human evolution. One of the current debates is on whether Neanderthals were a different species. We all know that they were different, but how much is enough to qualify as different species? Even hybrids have been disregarded, given that there is no evidence that they would be fertile. Thus, it is pertinent to upturn the question: was there a speciation event? Process above pattern-seeking. Well, there is none, and much evidence to the contrary. However, what to do with pre-split humans? Were pre-Neanderthals and pre-moderns something different? Or were we the same regardless of what a lost band of would-be-Neanderthals did? At the species level, the old Charlemagne dilemma (I think formulated by Mayr) is most relevant.

Cristian 

-----taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu ha escrit: -----

	Per a: "John Grehan" <jgrehan at sciencebuff.org>, <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
	De: "Richard Zander" <Richard.Zander at mobot.org>
	Enviat per: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
	Data: 13/12/2010 20:34
	Assumpte: Re: [Taxacom] Phylogenetic game

	I think we are both wrong, John. Nested parentheses are tricky.

	Your suggestion (a(b,c))... is close but does not indicate that a and b are progenitor-descendant. 

	Anybody have a suggestion how to include information in a cladogram that one branch of a tree is a surviving progenitor line? Particularly this case?

	ï»¿ 
	* * * * * * * * * * * * 
	Richard H. Zander 
	Missouri Botanical Garden, PO Box 299, St. Louis, MO 63166-0299 USA 
	Web sites: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/ and http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/bfna/bfnamenu.htm
	Modern Evolutionary Systematics Web site: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/21EvSy.htm

	-----Original Message-----
	From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of John Grehan
	Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 1:21 PM
	To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
	Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Phylogenetic game

	Huh? If b and c are both strains of brown bears would it not be that b and c go together, then a? (a (b,c)). 

	If the polar bear "budded off" on of the brown bear lineages (e.g.b) then would not the cladistic formulation be (a,b)c

	John Grehan

	-----Original Message-----
	From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Richard Zander
	Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 2:14 PM
	To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
	Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Phylogenetic game

	On paraphyly, suppose
	a = polar bear
	b = brown bear molecular strain 1
	c = brown bear molecular strain 2

	A strict cladist would say "((a,b)c) . . . 

	A loose cladist would say (but not in print) ((a)b)c...

	An evolutionary systematist would say "the polar bear line apparently budded off one of the brown bear lineages."

	The first two are structuralist patterns from which we deduce evolution of traits.

	The last is a scientific theory, which is well supported by data not in the cladistic data set.

	The first two allow theorems to be deduced about "evolution" of traits.

	The last allows well-informed guesses or theories that fit in well with other theories about the evolution of taxa following descent with modification. 

	Given the cant of the last 30 years, it is very difficult get out of "tree-thinking" limited to clades (leaves) and also think about caules (stems).

	ï»¿ 
	* * * * * * * * * * * * 
	Richard H. Zander 
	Missouri Botanical Garden, PO Box 299, St. Louis, MO 63166-0299 USA 
	Web sites: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/ and http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/bfna/bfnamenu.htm
	Modern Evolutionary Systematics Web site: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/21EvSy.htm

	-----Original Message-----
	From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of John Grehan
	Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 7:52 AM
	To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
	Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Phylogenetic game

	I guess one might label paraphyleticists as strict,something,
	(traditionalists?) as well. I'm not sure I can see how anyone labeled as
	a cladist is also a supporter of paraphyly as I thought the two were
	operationally incongruent.

	John Grehan

	-----Original Message-----
	From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
	[mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Kenneth Kinman
	Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2010 1:04 PM
	To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
	Subject: [Taxacom] Phylogenetic game

	Hi John,
	      All specimens that we study are extant specimens.  This is also
	true of fossil specimens---the specimens are extant, although the
	species may be extinct.  At least I'm pretty sure that was Richard's
	meaning.     
	      And yes, you are definitely a cladist (like me), and in my opinion
	a "strict" cladist (not like me).  Anyone who supports cladifying the
	paraphyletic family Pongidae (not only splitting it, but different
	strict cladists splitting it in different ways), is in my opinion a
	strict cladist.  I won't use the word extreme, because some strict
	cladists are more extreme than others.  
	               ---------Ken

	--------------------------------------------------------------
	John Grehan wrote:
	     I'm confused by the restriction of cladistics to extant specimens.
	Does the inclusion of fossils mean that the method is no longer
	cladistic? 
	I'm also confused by the absence 'of a theory of evolution of the groups
	involved' Hennig (and Rosa I think) postulated an unequal divergence
	from the ancestor. One can implement cladistics without caring either
	way, but that would seem to be true of phenetics or any other clustering
	method. 
	"the pattern of evidence is never used by sadists to create a theory of
	evolution of the groups involved." Meaning what? Please give an example
	of a non-cladistic method of systematics that does this. 
	On the bear speculations - it would seem that could be applied to any
	theory of relationship, cladistic or not. 
	On paraphyly - I respectfully disagree. Some people are ok with
	paraphyletic groups, others are not. So why lose sleep over it? Heck,
	only a handful think that morphological evidence can potentially falsify
	molecular evidence. But there's no point in castigating anyone for that.

	John Grehan (a cladist according to some, an extreme cladist according
	to some, a Hennigian cladists according to some, a non-cladist according
	to some). 

	_______________________________________________

	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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <http://taxacom.markmail.org/> 

	Or (2) a Google search specified as:  site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here