Re: cladobabble

[Kendall Clements <k.clements@auckland.ac.nz>]

On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 01:23:03 GMT Ken Kinman <kinman@hotmail.com> wrote:

> 
> Kendall,
>       I'm wondering which tripartite bilaterian phylogeny you are 
referring > to.  Did any of your students question whether one of the 
three "clades" > might be paraphyletic?


Dear Ken

The tripartite phylogeny I was referring to is summarised in several 
papers over the past few years, e.g.

Adoutte, A., G. Balavoine, N. Lartillot, O. Lespinet, B. PrudÕhomme and 
R. de Rosa (2000) The new animal phylogeny: reliability and 
implications.  PNAS 97: 4453-4456

Balavoine, G., and A. Adoutte (1998)  One or three Cambrian radiations? 
Science 280: 397-398

Conway Morris, S. (1998) Metazoan phylogenies: falling into place or 
falling to pieces? A palaeontological perspective. Curr. Opin. Gen. 
Devel. 8: 662-667

de Rosa, R., J.K. Grenier, T. Andreeva, C.E. Cook, A. Adoutte, M. Akam, 
S.B. Carroll and G.  Balavoine  (1999)  Hox genes in brachiopods and 
priapulids and protostome evolution.  Nature 399: 772-776

Knoll, A.H., and S.B. Carroll (1999)  Early animal evolution: emerging 
views from comparative biology and geology.  Science 284: 2129-2137

Peterson, K.J., and E.H. Davidson (2000) Regulatory evolution and the 
origin of the bilaterians.  PNAS 97: 4430-4433


None of the students questioned whether any of the three clades were 
paraphyletic. If they were they wouldn't be clades, would they? I have 
read that it is possible that cnidarians are paraphyletic, and that 
poriferans (sponges) are PROBABLY paraphyletic. However, as far as I am 
aware results to date suggest Deuterostomes, Lophotrochozoa and 
Ecdysozoa are all clades. Analyses that place Platyhelminthes outside 
Lophotrochozoa have been questioned.

Cheers

Kendall

----------------------
Kendall Clements
k.clements@auckland.ac.nz