[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: Turtles and Crocodylians are not Reptiles - no? What are they?
Mike Keesey wrote:
> I'm very confused, because what you just said sounds consistent with
> what Nick just said. And your second sentence seems to contradict
> itself.
I don't see how. If Mesonychia is the sister taxon to a Cetacea+Artiodactyla
clade (which Thewissen et al. call Artiodactyla, and you call Cetartiodactyla),
then Mesonychia is equally close to whales and to crown Artiodactyla (which
includes hippos). Mesonychia precedes the basal split that led to the
Raoellidae+Cetacea (your 'Pan-Cetacea') on the one hand and the crown
Artiodactyla on the other. Which is what you convey here...
> According to you, the topology is (Andrewsarchus, Mesonychia, (crown
> Artiodactyla*, (Raoellidae, Cetacea))).
Yes, exactly.
> Therefore, cetaceans share a clade with hippopotami (and other [crown]
> artiodactyls) which excludes
> mesonychians.
True. Again, Nick said the same thing, and I agree with it. But I disagree
with the inference that this makes cetaceans *closer* to hippos than to
mesonychians. Just because Mesonychia is outside the least inclusive clade
that contains whales and hippos does not necessarily make whales *closer* to
hippos. To use an analogous example, _Deinonychus_ is outside the least
inclusive clade that contains _Archaeopteryx_ and _Passer_; but _Archaeopteryx_
is still *closer* to _Deinonychus_ than it is to _Passer_. (Phew, I finally
managed to work in something to do with dinosaurs!)
> * which I think should just be called "Artiodactyla"
Yes, I think it's a nice idea to limit Artiodactyla to the crown artiodactyls.
But as I said in a previous message, raoellids (but not whales!) have
traditionally been put in crown Artiodactyla, as members of the Suina; so this
might have been a factor in Thewissen &c's decision to favor a more inclusive
Artiodactyla (i.e., including both raoellids and whales).
> Put it all on a tree:
>
> "Pan-Cetartiodactyla"
> |--Andrewsarchus
> |--Mesonychia
> `--Cetartiodactyla
> |--Artiodactyla (incl. Hippopotamidae)
> `--"Pan-Cetacea"
> |--Raoellidae
> `--Cetacea
You could also represent the topology this way...
"Pan-Cetartiodactyla"
|--Andrewsarchus
|--Mesonychia
`--Cetartiodactyla
|--"Pan-Cetacea"
|--Raoellidae
`--Cetacea
`--Artiodactyla (incl. Hippopotamidae)
or you could simplify it a bit:
"Pan-Cetartiodactyla"
|--Andrewsarchus
|--Mesonychia
`--Cetartiodactyla
|--"Pan-Cetacea" (incl. raoellids, cetaceans)
`--Artiodactyla (incl. Hippopotamidae)
Thus, the "Pan-Cetacea" (Raoellidae+Cetacea) is sister taxon to Artiodactyla.
Under this scheme, and following you (M. Keesey), the name Artiodactyla is
restricted to the crown Artiodactyla. However, Thewissen &c use Artiodactyla
for a more inclusive group - which you call Cetartiodactyla. But this doesn't
change anything. The centrepiece of my argument was that Thewissen &c's
phylogeny buries Whippomorpha. There's no way you can reconcile their
morpho/fossil phylogeny with any molecular phylogeny that includes a
Whippomorpha/Cetancodonta clade. If you defined Whippomorpha as the least
inclusive clade that includes whales and hippos, Whippomorpha becomes the same
(in content) as your Cetartiodactyla (Thewissen et al.'s Artiodactyla).
Cheers
Tim
_________________________________________________________________
Use video conversation to talk face-to-face with Windows Live Messenger.
http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/connect_your_way.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refresh_messenger_video_072008