Re: emu history

["Tim Williams" <twilliams_alpha@hotmail.com>]

Nick Pharris wrote:

> A slight wrinkle here.  Based on mitochondrial DNA, Cooper et al. 2001 
> (Nature
> 409: 704-7) actually found Kiwis closer to emus/cassowaries than to moas.


I'd be very cautious about using the results of mitochondrial genomic 
studies to override anatomy-based phylogenies.  I'm not saying that the 
analysis done by Cooper and friends is wrong.  What I am saying is that that 
not all phylogenetic analyses based on mitochondrial DNA (including those 
based on COMPLETE mitochondrial genomes) are necessarily correct.  Some 
mitochondrial-based phylogenetic analyses have produced some pretty 
wacked-out topologies - like putting passerines at the base of the 
Neornithes (Harlid et al., 1998).  Phylogenetic analyses using complete 
mitochondrial genomes cannot always be relied upon to generate the 'correct' 
tree.  Every dataset has its own intrinsic problems that throw a spanner in 
the phylogenetic works, and mitochondrial DNA is no exception.



Tim

_________________________________________________________________
Learn how to choose, serve, and enjoy wine at Wine @ MSN. 
http://wine.msn.com/