Re: Reduced Consensus (Was: Afrotheria revisited)

[David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>]

> > So really it's not too unlikely.  Especially since tons of relevent taxa
> > weren't included.  How about > some lipotyphlans, bats, carnivorimorphs,
> > afrosoricans, meridungulates, etc.?
>
> You're asking for a whole phylogeny of placentals in that case.  For
> example, if you include carnivoramorphs, then you have to include
> 'creodonts'... and so on.

Of course. There is no other way to test the composition and position of 
Afrotheria. That's why nobody has done it so far; we'll have to wait for an 
opus magnum like Livezey & Zusi's on Neornithes, except with many more 
fossils.

> > Really, the entire tree's poorly supported.  Bootstrapping results in 95%
> > support for Rhynchocyon+Myohyrax, and 68% for Macroscelidea.  71% for
> > Haplomylus+Macroscelidea and 66% for the clade of everything except
> > Protungulatum and Mithrandir.  Every other node is
> > supported by <50%.
>
> Is this partly the consequence of low taxon sampling?

This needs to be found out by trial & error.