RE: Tinamous: living dinosaurs

[Mickey Mortimer <mickey_mortimer111@msn.com>]

Tim Williams wrote-

> All too often we
> are quick to regard a molecular analysis as inherently superior to a
> morphological one. Harshman &c invoke convergence in postcranial
> characters (associated with secondary loss of flight) as the
> explanation for why osteology-based analyses produce a monophyletic
> ratite group. They might be right; but I wouldn't assume that
> phylogenetic analyses are so easily fooled. So I'm keeping an open
> mind on ratite/tinamou relationships.

Has there ever been a case where a well established molecular-based 
relationship was discarded due to morphology?  There have been molecular-based 
relationships that were later changed by better molecular data which matched 
morphological ideas (e.g. guinea pigs aren't rodents), but I don't know of any 
molecular-based relationship which is consistantly found and which workers 
believe is wrong.  I trust molecular data over morphological any day, since 
even huge analyses like Livezey and Zusi's seem doomed by convergence.

Mickey Mortimer