[Taxacom] LOL (was Re: New lizard species)

[Stephen Thorpe]

>Generally, speciation events are relative short compared to the stasis within species. Ergo, most fossils are of the stasis period. Hence, most fossils are of extant taxa, and not of actual ancestors

is it just me, or does that make no sense?! Surely "actual ancestors" (whatever that means?) can't be equated with fossils created during a speciation event (whatever that is?)? What about the even longer time before the speciation event?



________________________________
From: Kim van der Linde <kim at kimvdlinde.com>
To: Richard Zander <Richard.Zander at mobot.org>
Cc: Taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Sent: Fri, 11 June, 2010 12:03:44 PM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] LOL (was Re: New lizard species)

Just think about the intrusion of Neanderthaler genes into modern 
humans. We have basically proven that 1-4% of our genes (ex African 
tribes) originated from a specific taxon.

The real issue here is one of numbers. Generally, speciation events are 
relative short compared to the stasis within species. Ergo, most fossils 
are of the stasis period. Hence, most fossils are of extant taxa, and 
not of actual ancestors.

It is also inherent to reconstruction methods. It is a statistical 
averaging method, whether you use morphological or molecular techniques.

Kim

On 6/10/2010 6:36 PM, Richard Zander wrote:
> I've looked at publications on ancient DNA used in phylogenetics, and
> such DNA is mostly used as an outgroup. Does anyone know of a cladogram
> where ancient DNA was used as an actual ancestor, that is, identified as
> a cladogram node or internode. As opposed to just being an exemplar,
> that is, an extant DNA?
>
> A taxacomer has asserted that fossils are not ancestors of anything
> alive today, maybe because they probably are in lines that died out. Is
> that the reason? Is it a good reason?
>
> Remember that the phylogenetic tree is caulistically empty. A
> phylogenetic tree of life may be totally replaced by a nested
> parentheses of life. Well, maybe a phylogram has info on genetic
> distances or trait changes, but I do not ever expect to see a dinosaur,
> mastodon, or Neanderthal represented as an ancestor of anything modern
> in a cladogram. A cladogram is entirely a sister-group diagram.
>
>
>
> *****************************
> Richard H. Zander
> Voice: 314-577-0276
> Missouri Botanical Garden
> PO Box 299
> St. Louis, MO 63166-0299 USA
> richard.zander at mobot.org
> 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: Kim van der Linde [mailto:kim at kimvdlinde.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 10:18 AM
> To: Richard Zander
> Cc: Taxacom
> Subject: LOL (was Re: [Taxacom] New lizard species)
>
>
> Never heard of Ancient DNA yet or dinosaur amino acid sequences? We have
> now genetic information of ancestors, isn't that great!
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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
>

-- 
http://www.kimvdlinde.com

_______________________________________________

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