Thanks Christer. I don't think of phylogenetic
hypotheses in terms of 'right' or 'wrong,' or
true or false, since valid testing is virtually
never performed. I was only curious to ascertain
the extent to which irrationality was minimized
in the derivation of the conclusions. You
answered my question, for which I'm grateful.
Kirk
At 05:14 AM 4/21/2008, you wrote:
>Dear all,
>>A response to Kirk Fitzhugh's recent comment (repeated below):
>>The studies by Sjölin et al (2005) and Envall et al. (2006) both analyzed a
>combination of mitochondrial and nuclear genetic information, and they gave
>strong support for “Naididae” being phylogenetically nested within
>“Tubificidae”. The morphological data available were not included and have
>so far not been analyzed in combination with the gene data. However, as
>previous morphological studies (by necessity based on a very limited number
>of characters) also have suggested this position of “Naididae”, we feel
>confident enough about our conclusion that the complex Tubificidae/Naididae
>needs a new definition/classification.
>>Of course, if Kirk or anyone else thinks that our conclusion is wrong, one
>is free to continue regarding the two “families” as two taxa of the same
>rank. The essence of our recent communication (“ICZN rules
”) is merely that
>“all former tubificids should now be regarded as members of the Naididae
>WHENEVER these two names are regarded as synonyms.
>>Christer
>>>------Kirk's message------
>>In looking at the references in this paper, it appears that placement of the
>Naididae in the Tubificidae is determined on the basis of analyses using
>separate data sets. I was curious if anyone has combined all data and looked
>at the results. This would be required to provide a new definition of the
>Naididae.
>>Kirk
>>>-----Original Message-----
>From: annelida-bounces from oat.bio.indiana.edu>[mailto:annelida-bounces from oat.bio.indiana.edu] On Behalf Of Geoff Read
>Sent: den 15 april 2008 05:36
>To: annelida from magpie.bio.indiana.edu>Subject: [Annelida] Tubificoid Naididae
>>FYI
>>Zootaxa open access letter.
>>>ICZN rules - a farewell to Tubificidae (Annelida, Clitellata)
>CHRISTER ERSEUS (Sweden), MARK J. WETZEL (USA) & LENA GUSTAVSSON
>(Sweden)
>Zootaxa 1744: 66-68 (9 Apr. 2008) 0 plates; 28 references
>>http://www.mapress.com/zootaxa/2008/f/zt01744p068.pdf>>Summary. Morphological and molecular characters support that the former
>clitellate family Naididae Ehrenberg, 1828 is nested within another
>family, Tubificidae Vejdovský, 1876. To avoid paraphyly of the latter,
>it has been suggested that the two should be regarded as a single taxon.
>A recent decision by the International Commission of Zoological
>Nomenclature [2007; opinion 2167 (Case 3305)] ruled against a proposed
>reversal of the nomenclatural priority of Naididae over Tubificidae,
>with the consequence that all former tubificids should now be regarded
>as members of the Naididae whenever these two names are regarded as
>synonyms. The paper is a plea to clitellate researchers to conform to
>this ruling.
>>>>_______________________________________________
>Annelida mailing list
>Post: Annelida from net.bio.net>Help/archive: http://www.bio.net/biomail/listinfo/annelida>Resources: http://www.annelida.net>>>>_______________________________________________
>Annelida mailing list
>Post: Annelida from net.bio.net>Help/archive: http://www.bio.net/biomail/listinfo/annelida>Resources: http://www.annelida.net
