[Taxacom] confused phylogeny?

[Kenneth Kinman]

Hi Stephen,
       Thanks for the doi address of that more recent paper.  It is not
only an excellent paper, but it's even free access.  :-)       
       I would agree with their conclusion that Acoelomorpha is most
likely holophyletic (strictly monophyletic). However, I'm not convinced
it is really sister group to the rest of Bilateria.  I think it would be
very helpful to add a lot more lophophorates (in Polyzoa and
Kryptotrochozoa).        
      I suspect doing so could very well show Polyzoa to be paraphyletic
and Kryptotrochozoa to be polyphyletic, and it might also move
Acoelomorpha from the base of Bilateria to somewhere closer to Platyzoa.
If Acoelomorpha has undergone secondary simplification (accompanied by
accelerated genomic evolution), it could be distorting the
interrelationships of the major bilaterian groupings.  And as I said
above, I believe that including a broader sampling of lophophorates will
be necessary to get a more accurate phylogeny.                
          ---------Ken                
-----------------------------------------------------------    
Stephen wrote: 
      actually, a more recent phylogeny (doi:10.1098/rspb.2009.0896)
argues strongly for a monophyletic Acoelomorpha at the base of
Bilateria, after all ... so perhaps we should go with that (at least
until the next phylogeny comes along and contradicts it again ...)