<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Kirk,<div>Please consult the Supplement for details on a maximum parsimony analysis that I assume you would not find dubious. A total evidence analysis (i.e., a "limited set of sequence data", plus what must also be called a "limited set" of morphological data) will appear in due course that may alleviate your other concern.<div>greg<br><div><br><div><div>On Aug 23, 2009, at 7:15 AM, J. Kirk Fitzhugh wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"> <div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> <font size="-1"><font face="Arial">The phylogenetic hypotheses are only 'solid' insofar as they explain a limited set of sequence data. Given that the authors must know they are actively avoiding considering all sorts of other relevant data that are in need of being explained in the same context, e.g. the setae as Jim Blake noted, and the use of Bayes Theorem is not meant for the inference of hypotheses, then Torsten's endorsement is ill-founded at best.<br> <br> But then, let's not quibble with the fine points of doing good science - it's more important to impose blind acceptance of methods by even more blind endorsement.<br> <br> Kirk<br> </font></font><br> Struck, Torsten wrote: <blockquote cite="mid:263E84B5DC854F4C92307908F8E054FD4EEF00@XCH.biologie.Uni-Osnabrueck.DE" type="cite"> <pre wrap="">Indeed, it is a nice discovery and very interesting. Moreover, the
phylogenetic hypotheses are very solid (not at all "dubios at best") and
good in comparison to several other analyses out there.
</pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">Nice discoveries indeed. It's unfortunate that the scientific merits of the
phylogenetic hypotheses are dubious at best. But then, it *is* published in
Science. ;-)
Kirk
-----Original Message-----
From: <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:annelida-bounces@oat.bio.indiana.edu">annelida-bounces@oat.bio.indiana.edu</a> on behalf of Geoff Read
Sent: Sat 8/22/2009 12:54 AM
To: <Annelida list
Subject: [Annelida] Swima the swimmer
Swima bombiviridis named (new genus, new species of acrocirrid)
Abstract: "By using remotely operated vehicles, we found seven previously
unknown species of swimming annelid worms below 1800 meters. Specimens were
large and bore a variety of elaborate head appendages. In addition, five
species have pairs of ellipsoidal organs homologous to branchiae that produce
brilliant green bioluminescence when autotomized. Five genes were used to
determine the evolutionary relationships of these worms within
Cirratuliformia. These species form a clade within Acrocirridae and were not
closely related to either of the two known pelagic cirratuliforms. Thus, this
clade represents a third invasion of the pelagic realm from Cirratuliformia.
This finding emphasizes the wealth of discoveries to be made in pelagic and
deep demersal habitats."
Nice discovery. I want to know what they feed on, and how.
------ CONTACT INFORMATION ------
PD Dr. habil. Torsten H. Struck
University of Osnabrück
Department of Biology/Chemistry
Zoology
Barbarastrasse 11
D-49069 Osnabrück
Germany
