Re: "Neomammals" (arising out of Neoaves discussion)

[David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>]

> I wonder if we're just screwed with mammalian morphological analyses. 
> Even if we use a molecaular 'scaffold' to constrain results, will we just 
> get ecotypes clading together?  Sure, you may say that morphological and 
> molecular analyses are converging, based on new morphological studies. 
> But that's because we 'know where to look', so to speak (like the new 
> hippo-whale characters in Geisler and Uhen, 2003).  I've often said I 
> could create any result for coelurosaur phylogeny in PAUP, and I fear this 
> trend is similar.  Are we just fulfilling our expectations, and does this 
> have consequences for trees without molecular expectations (extinct mammal 
> clades, non-avian dinosaurs)?

I'm more optimistic. Good morphological analyses for larger parts of 
Placentalia and Neornithes are only beginning to appear. One of these 
immediately found the flamingo-grebe-*Juncitarsus* clade (far away from the 
loons), and another the Pelicanidae-hammerkop-shoebill clade. Recently we 
got penguins and plotopterids clading together -- an entirely unexpected 
result, but this time without a molecular analysis hinting at it. Basically, 
you are comparing good molecular and bad morphological analyses. There are 
no good morphological analyses here that could give us independent hints for 
where to look. There is none the size of your theropod analysis.

Concerning ecotypes... the new bird paper finds quite neat waterbird and 
landbird clades, and the placental analyses, while not finding ecotypes 
except for the occasional (and apparently wrong) Euungulata, fit 
biogeography better than morphologists dared to hope.

Let's just keep waiting for the extra-large morphological bird analysis 
Livesey & Zusi are reportedly still working on. :-)