Re: origin of bats

[Mike Habib <habib@jhmi.edu>]

> 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