[Taxacom] New molecular propaganda on primate systematics

[Richard Zander]

I've read the recent article on phylogeny of humans, apes, monkeys, and
the like, and it does have some problems. E.g., Satta's earlier article
indicated about 40 sequences for ((human,pan) gorilla) and 20 each for
the alternatives. The actual balance of sequences for the present paper
might be the same, and one might then say the chance is again 50% for
((human,pan) gorilla if each sequence in the study was taken as a
character (an old idea by Doyle). 

Mushing the sequences all together necessarily makes longer sequences
decisive. I did not see any stardardization of data that might have
eliminated that bias.

On the other hand, suppose it is right? It's only a phylogeny, for God's
sake, meaning it is only an accurate portrayal of presentday
relationships of exemplars. It needs to be studied to develop a theory
of how these presentday relationships were established. 

For instance, phylogeny gives us ((polarbear, brownbear1)brownbear2)...
and subsequent theory about these presentday relationships by
evolutionary systematists gives us polarbear arising from brownbear1,
using Dollo's Rule. You can ignore any classification developed from
phylogenetic analyses alone because they are based on presentday
relationships alone. They are based on presentday relationships alone
because these can be accurately analyzed and presented to funders as
mathematically and statistically precise. Adding the dimension of
science demonstrates that phylogenetic analysis is ONLY an important
advance in systematics, not a paradigm change. 

 
* * * * * * * * * * * * 
Richard H. Zander 
Missouri Botanical Garden, PO Box 299, St. Louis, MO 63166-0299 USA 
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: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
[mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Kenneth Kinman
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2011 10:29 PM
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] New molecular propaganda on primate systematics
Hi John, 
      Well, I will admit that this study is not the "comprehensive"
genome comparison for which I am still waiting.  But still, it does seem
to confirm the view that the Gorilla-Pan-Homo clade is very tight-knit
(with Pongo the odd man out).  But although this is no doubt a
disappoint to John, that does not make it propaganda.     
      What I find interesting is that the Gorilla-Pan-Homo clade (a
virtual trichotomy) is so closely knit that that this study cannot
clearly show strong evidence that Pan is definitely closer to Homo than
it is to Gorilla. It wlll take a much more comprehensive, genome-wide,
analysis to cladify that trichotomy with more precision.  I really hope
that such an analysis is not only in the works, but will be published
before the end of 2011.  But I suppose John will brand such a study as
propaganda as well if it still shows orangutans as the odd man out among
great apes.  In any case, it should be interesting to see what the
broader evidence shows.    
               ----------Ken Kinman