problem with interpretation of models in avian phylogeny

["Dora Smith" <villandra@austin.rr.com>]

I am reading through these studies and observing a problem of interpretation
of results in molecular studies of bird phylogeny.

TAke, for example, the notion that passeriformes are +ACI-basal+ACI- to all 
other
birds.   I am looking at one of Mindell's articles at the moment, and in
this study he has findings consistent with that idea.

Except that that is not what his model or his statistics show.

                         i------ Ostriches and Rheas
                         i
                  i------
                  i      i
                  i      i------ Chickens and ducks
        i--------
        i         i
        i         i----- Falcon
------i
       i
       i
       i---------   Passerines

This model does not show that Passerines are basal to all other birds.   It
shows that Passerines were the first group to diverge from the other birds.
Basal to all birds is a common ancestor of Passerines and other birds.

This is very important.   Passerines are the most evolved of birds.    How
could they be the ancestors of all the other birds?   Could their degree of
evolution and their numbers be the result of having been evolving longer?


Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, Texas
villandra+AEA-austin.rr.com