[Taxacom] Bye bye Crustacea

[J. Kirk Fitzhugh]

Yeah, and when you put your hands over your eyes, no one can see you. Right?

On 6/14/2010 4:50 PM, Robin Leech wrote:
> 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...