[Taxacom] Bye bye Crustacea

[Robin Leech]

Logic and philosophy. Logic and philosophy.
Ya Gotta have the right attitude.
Robin
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <Garry.Jolley-Rogers at csiro.au>
To: <kfitzhug at nhm.org>; <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 5:39 PM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Bye bye Crustacea


> This debate has smouldered ever since Cuvier.  Here's hoping its FINALLY 
> moving towards consensus as it makes comparative work difficult.
>
> G
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu 
> [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of J. Kirk Fitzhugh
> Sent: Saturday, 12 June 2010 3:49 AM
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Bye bye Crustacea
>
> Bob,
>
> Re the part of the paper you quote, hypotheses are by definition
> 'strongly supported' by the very data used to infer them. It's a trivial
> relation between premises and conclusion - the misapplication of
> bootstrapping, Bremer 'support', etc., notwithstanding. The problem
> however is that any one hypothesis derived from one class of data can
> say nothing regarding other classes of data. As I've noted before, there
> are no rational end runs that can be made around the requirement of
> total evidence. But then, who ever said systematics strives for 
> rationality?
>
> Kirk
>
> On 6/11/2010 2:54 AM, Bob Mesibov wrote:
>> Tonight I was pointed at
>>
>> Arthropod relationships revealed by phylogenomic analysis of nuclear 
>> protein-coding sequences
>> Jerome C. Regier, Jeffrey W. Shultz, Andreas Zwick, April Hussey, Bernard 
>> Ball, Regina Wetzer, Joel W. Martin&  Clifford W. Cunningham
>> Nature (Letter) 463 (25 Feb 2010) 1079-1083 (doi:10.1038/nature08742)
>>
>> What's revealed, among other things, is that Hexapoda nests within 
>> Pancrustacea and is sister to Remipedia+Cephalocarida. The tree was built 
>> using 62 single-copy nuclear protein-coding genes, which partly explains 
>> why it differs from earlier arthropod trees based on nuclear rRNA. Taxon 
>> sampling was pretty light (75 arthropods out of how many?) but 
>> well-spread.
>>
>> There are a lot of questions raised by this study, quite apart from the 
>> paraphyly issues. Morphologically I find the proposed sister-group 
>> relationship for hexapods utterly baffling, but the authors are very 
>> sympathetic to my confusion and say
>>
>> "In conclusion, our phylogenomic study provides a strongly supported 
>> phylogenetic framework for the arthropods, but the problem of 
>> reconstructing and interpreting morphological evolution within this 
>> diverse group remains."
>>
>> Which might be understood as:
>>
>> "This is what probably happened. If your morphological studies don't 
>> support this framework, you need to do more work on your morphology."
>>
>> Ummm...
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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
>