[For Cohen in the first line read Fitzhugh. Judicious editing of requotes
of prior postings is recommended -- Moderator ;-)]
=========================================================================
I second the suggestion that evidence be provided to support B.L. Cohen's
criticism. I am not suggesting that such evidence doesn't exist. I would
suggest that this issue is of great importance and worthy of a scholoarly
review in this medium. I am afraid (and biased I suppose), that in the
absence of molecular data, we really don't have much data supporting
phylogeny in many areas, especially among the invertebrates.
MS
============================================================================
D. Michael Satterwhite, PhD. Phone: 208-799-2890 at LCSC
Division of Natural Science and Mathematics Home: 208-746-3628/7288
Lewis-Clark State College Fax: 208-799-2064
500 8th Street
Lewiston, Idaho 83501 e-mail: msatterw at lcsc.edu
On Sat, 11 May 1996, B.L.Cohen wrote:
> >Phylogenetic research programs for invertebrates are pitifully
> >lacking. As such, I'm generally critical of those who attempt phylum-level
> >analyses; which seems to be the growing trend with the advent of the
> >misguided and grossly naive notion that molecular sequence data will tell us
> >how phyla are related.
> >
> >Kirk Fitzhugh
> >
>> As someone involved in trying to use molecular data to unravel lophophorate
> relationships (especially brachiopods) I would disagree with this remark.
> Whilst it may be true that any one gene (such as the 18s rDNA sequence) may
> contain insufficient evidence to completely resolve phylum-level
> relationships, it does very well at lower levels (e.g. Classes) and clearly
> separates creatures belonging to different phyla. If the SSU gene alone can
> show that phoronids and brachiopods are monophyletic, why, with more data,
> should other relationships between phyla be impossible to discern?
>> Perhaps if Kirk has some solid evidence to support his remark he will share
> it with us.
>> Bernie Cohen
