RE: Neoavian phylogeny papers

[Tim Williams <twilliams_alpha@hotmail.com>]

Christopher Taylor wrote:

>     I'm not convinced by this one - the molecular tree does have the two
> families as a clade, but with only 48% bootstrap support, and only under
> parsimony [snip] Which leads me to a bit of a down note - it almost seems a 
> bit like one
> can pretty much pick and choose their own phylogeny in Neoaves, and no
> matter how outre it seems, you'll be able to find support for it somewhere.

You're not alone Chris: I've seen many a scientist despair at this.  
Molecular phylogenies are not a panacea for resolving evolutionary 
relationships.  I wish it were otherwise, but genes can be tantalizingly 
cruel.  Of course, genes also can be very helpful - but in the case of 
birds, I think we need to take a deep breath and ask WHY we get so many 
contradictory phylogenies.

I agree with Mayr's comment: "Plotopterids exemplify the importance of 
fossil birds for analyzing the phylogenetic relationships of modern taxa 
that exhibit a highly apomorphic morphology."  Unfortunately, so many avian 
families and "orders" have a poor fossil record, especially when it comes to 
basal relationships.


Tim