[Taxacom] Ladderising phylogenetic trees

[Kenneth Kinman]

Hi Curtis,
       I don't think that is what she meant, given that she make the
broad statement that: "There is no evidence to support anagenesis as a
mechanism of speciation."  She seems to be dismissing the idea of
anagenetic speciation, be it "bad" or "good".      
       What I really worry about are the students who she might be
negatively influencing by branding their ideas as misconceptions.   She
seems to be branding all anagenetic evolution as a misconception (just
as strict phylogeneticists brand all formal paraphyletic taxa as
unnatural and/or "unscientific").  
         ----------Ken Kinman               
P.S.  As I noted earlier this year, I am not convinced that "Humans are
descended from monkeys" is a case of "bad" anagenesis.  If New World
monkeys and Old World monkeys are a paraphyletic grouping that evolved
into apes, then even that is not a real case of "bad" anagenesis.
However, I WOULD agree that saying that humans evolved from chimpanzees
almost certainly is a case of "bad" anagenesis, and worthy of being
branded as such.  Chimps appear to be a clade whereas "monkeys" seem to
be a grade (a paraphyletic grouping that I would NOT be in favor of
formally naming, any more that I recognize the old Class "Pisces").  But
the paraphyletic Class Sarcopterygia is a whole different matter,
especially since so few species still exist (and is the most likely
major group of vertebrates facing extinction in this century).  The most
primitive of the lungfish (in Queensland, Australia) has been in the
news in the last few days as more threats to its survival are surfacing
once again.       
-------------------------------------------------------------
Curtis Clark wrote:
"Bad anagenesis" is the belief that modern forms are descended from
other modern forms ("Humans are descended from monkeys"). I found this
belief common among "pre-evolutionary" students. Perhaps that's what she
means.