At 03:11 AM 11/4/2006, Harry ten Hove wrote:
>Indeed the earliest reliable serpulid
>identifications as far as I know are from the
>Jurassic, and I would not be too surprised if
>the spirorbids appeared in the Cretaceous only,
>although the most recent phylogenies confirm
>that spirorbids are an ingroup of Serpulidae
>(e.g. E.K. Kupriyanova et al, 2006.-
>Phylogenetic relationships within Serpulidae
>(Sabellida, Annelida) inferred from molecular
>and morphological data. Zoologica Scripta, 35,
>5, September 2006, pp.421439), making a
>Jurassic age of spirorbid forms not unlikely.
Harry,
Thanks for the overview. Speaking of the very
nice paper by Kupriyanova et al. (2006), wherein
partitioned analyses were performed, I would like
to mention a paper I just published that
discusses the fact that this popular approach is
philosophically untenable: Fitzhugh,
K. 2006. The requirement of total evidence
and its role in phylogenetic systematics. Biology
& Philosophy 21: 309-351. As well, my recent
Zootaxa paper ('The abduction of phylogenetic
hypotheses') shows that Bayesian reasoning cannot
be applied to the inference of phylogenetic hypotheses.
Best,
Kirk
-----------------------------------------------------
J. Kirk Fitzhugh, Ph.D.
Curator of Polychaetes
Invertebrate Zoology Section
Research & Collections Branch
Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History
900 Exposition Blvd
Los Angeles CA 90007
Phone: 213-763-3233
FAX: 213-746-2999
e-mail: kfitzhug At nhm.orghttp://www.nhm.org/research/annelida/staff.htmlhttp://www.nhm.org/research/annelida/index.html
----------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.bio.net/bionet/mm/annelida/attachments/20061105/4f7bb31d/attachment.html