Re: New paper on Neoaves

[Michael Mortimer <mickey_mortimer111@msn.com>]

Tim Williams wrote-

> > Lots of mammalian groups which molecular evidence reject were also 
> > supported by good-looking lists of synapomorphies.
>
> In some cases, they still are.  I don't think molecular phylogenies have 
> 'solved' the problem of placental phylogeny, in spite of those 
> well-supported sequence-based clades.  We tend to use molecular-based 
> analyses to make up for the deficiencies of morphology-based analyses 
> (incomplete fossil record, convergence, etc).  But I tend to believe that 
> these deficiencies carry over into molecular phylogenies too, though 
> they're expressed in different ways.

And yet the placental phylogeny is supported by retroposon integration, 
which is said to be virtually homoplasy-proof (Nishihara et al., 2006).  In 
fact, the lone homoplasious example was hypothesized to be carried 
heterozygotically in a population before the allele was fixed.

> > But I do favor molecular over morphological, so I may be biased.
>
> I lean in the other direction - and I work with molecules.

And I work with morphology.  Maybe a grass-is-greener situation?

> > > The amount of homoplasy caused by biochemical constraints may be vastly 
> > > underestimated.
> >
> > I think we're basically talking about the same thing.  I just think doing 
> > this will take a LOT of time.
>
> There are people working on it, but it's difficult research.  But I believe 
> it's worth the effort.

Agreed.

Mickey Mortimer