Re: Paleontology and molecular clocks

[chris brochu <gator@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>        Milinkovitch, M. C.  1995.  Molecular phylogeny of cetaceans
>prompts revision of morphological transformations.  Trends in ecology and
>evolution 10 (8): 328-334.  [Here molecular conclusions are quite at odds
>with stratigraphy and anatomical cladistics.  Alas, the molecular results
>have been accepted by many as "gospel" . . . the opposing anatomical
>studies are just too hard to work through, I suppose.]

Actually, they're not "entirely at odds" in this case.  There was a talk at
the evolution meetings a couple of years back showing that this is a
rooting problem - the unrooted topology supported by Milinkovitch's data is
completely congruent with what everyone else was saying, but the outgroup
they were using was supporting an unorthodox root.  Alternative outgroups
support a more conventional tree, with a monophyletic Odontoceti.

The analysis done at the evolution meetings also used a combined data set
that included fossils.

Which brings up a point I made on VRTPALEO - several molecular systematists
at the evolution meeting this year kept asking me where the other
paleontologists were.  They WANT us at these meetings, and they WANT our
data.


chris

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Christopher Brochu
Department of Geological Sciences
University of Texas at Austin
Austin, TX 78712

gator@mail.utexas.edu