Archaebacteria and the Three Kingdoms

arlin at arlin at
Thu Apr 14 09:37:49 EST 1994

In article <badger.766075571 at phylo>, badger at (Jonathan Badger) writes:
> As a microbiology graduate student at the University of Illinois (Woese's
> home turf), I'm curious as how the detractors of the Three Kingdoms
> explain evidence such as the presence of TATA-binding proteins in the Archea
> that appear to be part of a eukaryotic-style TF IID complex (Marsh, et al.,
> 1994). If the Archea are not more closely related to eukaryotes than bacteria,
> what do you suppose occurred? Horizontal gene transfer?
There is no need to propose special explanations.  Lets suppose that archaes,
euks, and eubs really are three clades, but we don't know how they are 
related.  Finding a pattern of [ + , + , - ] for some character, such as
the presence or absence of TFIID, is not usable phylogenetic information
(unless the character states are ordered).  If the ancestral state is 
[ + ], then loss in any of the groups can occur, regardless of the 
phylogeny, leaving two [ + ]'s and one [ - ].  


More information about the Mol-evol mailing list