Re: cladobabble

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

On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 05:16:57 GMT Ken Kinman <kinman@hotmail.com> wrote:

> 
> Kendall,
>     This is just a suggestion, but if you really want to challenge your 
> students (and perhaps your own thinking as well), I would suggest exploring 
> the possibility that Lophotrochozoa is paraphyletic to the clades 
> Deuterostomia and Ecdysozoa.   Specifically, are the genes (and Hox genes in 
> particular) of Lophotrochozoa really synapomorphies, or just 
> plesiomorphies???  This question has not only *not* been answered, but few 
> have even thought to ask this question at all.
>                         -------Ken
> P.S.  I would also note that I have long believed that platyhelminths are 
> secondarily simplified from other "lophotrochozoans".  And I also agree that 
> poriferans and cnidarians are probably paraphyletic as well (in addition to 
> lophotrochozoans, each in succession).


Dear Ken

This may be getting a bit off topic, so I'll make it quick. I would 
only consider "exploring the possibility that Lophotrochozoa is 
paraphyletic to the clades Deuterostomia and Ecdysozoa" if there 
were data to support it. Given that Deuterostomes are thought to be the 
basal clade of the three, I feel these data are lacking.

Cheers

Kendall

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