Poor Willi Hennig?

Tim Ikeda timi at mendel.berkeley.edu
Tue Sep 19 01:52:42 EST 1995


In article <43ecm1$l89 at studium.student.umu.se>,
Agneta.Guillemot at historia.umu.se (Ludvig Mortberg) wrote:
[...]
> I think that sequence information should only  be used if nothing else
> works.

I think one should use the information one has available.  Any
discrepancies found could be interesting.

> If you can't identify any reliable morphological traits try sequencing
> a couple of genes with broad outgroups. What to sequence is hard to
> decide. Go for something linked to morphology or metabolism.

Hmm...  Sequence data that is directly linked to morphology?
I don't think that is much of an option at present given the
uncertainty in mapping the genotype to the phenotype or gross
morphology.  As Ed Rybicki said, this is also not a lot of help
for bacteria (ie. most of the organisms on the planet) or viruses. 
Metabolic or structural genes seem a better bet and that is part
of the reason why they have been used.

Regards, Tim Ikeda (timi at mendel.berkeley.edu)



More information about the Mol-evol mailing list