Even a cladist would disagree there, Judith (at least this one). Kirk's
analysis did not attempt to examine the validity of Hediste. It was the
relationships between genera (whatever that is) that was the issue, and
the delineation of the subfamilies (no comment;-). Note also that on Kirk's
trees Hediste comes out in a polytomy together with a number of Nereis
sensu lato taxa. As far as I'm aware (but not knowing the nereid literature
well enough) there is no current evidence that Hediste represent a
separate group from Nereis. Or? And, of course, it also depends on how
we choose to delineate "Nereis".
Cheers/Fredrik
Fredrik Pleijel
Tjärnö Marine Biological Laboratory
SE-452 96 Strömstad, Sweden
tel + 46 526 686 38
fax + 46 526 686 07
e.mail fredrik.pleijel at tmbl.gu.se
-- ANNELIDA
Discuss = annelida at net.bio.net = talk to all members
Server = biosci-server at net.bio.net = un/subscribes
Archives = http://www.bio.net:80/hypermail/ANNELIDA/
Resources = http://biodiversity.uno.edu/~worms/annelid.html
--
