[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: origin of bats
2. The authors state: "Because morphology based phylogenies of
extant bats conflict with those based on gene
sequences..." So...until DNA tests support morphology and vice versa
(we can see the same problems within the Reptilia where even DNA
testing does not agree with other DNA testing), DNA tests among
varying genera will always be suspect. Within genera, the evidence
is stronger as any CSI TV show will testify. And occasionally DNA
gets lucky.
But couldn't we also take this to indicate that the morphological
trees are suspect? With these sorts of disagreements, I don't see any
specific reason to favor one data source over the other, out of hand.
It depends very much on the quality of the specific work in each
case. Some DNA datasets are very small and weak, while others are
large and analyzed with robust methods. Same can be said for
morphology.
Cheers,
--Mike
Michael Habib, M.S.
PhD. Candidate
Center for Functional Anatomy and Evolution
Johns Hopkins School of Medicine
1830 E. Monument Street
Baltimore, MD 21205
(443) 280-0181
habib@jhmi.edu