mcardle@utzoo.UUCP (Mike McArdle) (10/24/87)
What is the basis for the "evolutionary trees" utilizing information
from the genetic material of large primates (i.e. man, gorilla, etc.)?
Are these classifications and their associated divergence times based
on phenetic or phylogenetic analyses? Do both methods provide similar
classifications?
--
Name: Mike "CLADIST" McArdle
Mail: Dept. Zoology, Univ. Toronto
Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 1A1
UUCP: {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!mcardlewcalvin@well.UUCP (William Calvin) (10/25/87)
Evolutionary trees have traditionally been constructed on the basis of comparative anatomy; since 1963, we've had molecular clocks of various sorts, and the betting is that comparisons of DNA sequences will be much more definitive. See Roger Lewin's news article in last week's SCIENCE for a good rundown. William H. Calvin University of Washington NJ-15, Seattle WA 98195
felsenst@entropy.ms.washington.edu (Joe Felsenstein) (10/27/87)
In article <8826@utzoo.UUCP> mcardle@utzoo.UUCP (Mike McArdle) writes: > >What is the basis for the "evolutionary trees" utilizing information >from the genetic material of large primates (i.e. man, gorilla, etc.)? >Are these classifications and their associated divergence times based >on phenetic or phylogenetic analyses? Do both methods provide similar >classifications? >-- >Name: Mike "CLADIST" McArdle (1) "Evolutionary trees" are not classifications, they are phylogenies. The question of how they are (or are not) to influence the classification system is a separate one. (2) The estimation of phylogenies is, by definition, phylogenetic. (3) Terms like "cladistic" and "phenetic" are properly applied to systems of constructing classifications. It only confuses matters to call certain methods of estimating phylogenies "cladistic" and others "phenetic". (4) Molecular methods using DNA give similar answers irrespective of whether they are based on DNA hybridization or DNA sequences. (the former are often miscalled "phenetic", the latter miscalled "cladistic" evidence. This is not to say they give a clear resolution of the human-chimp-gorilla trichotomy -- there is still conflicting evidence with perhaps a trend towards human-chimp. (5) All of the above propositions, which I will happily defend, are vehemently disbelieved by most people calling themselves cladists. ----- Joe Felsenstein, Dept. of Genetics SK-50, Univ. of Washington, Seattle WA 98195 BITNET: uw-entropy!uw-evolution!joe%uw-beaver.ARPA@UWAVM or uw-entropy!uw-evolution!joe%uw-beaver.ARPA@UWAVM.ACC.WASHINGTON.EDU or uw-entropy!uw-evolution!joe%uw-beaver.ARPA@WISCVM.WISC.EDU (**) ARPANET: uw-entropy!uw-evolution!joe@beaver.cs.washington.edu or uw-evolution!joe%entropy.ms@beaver.cs.washington.edu UUCP: ... uw-beaver!uw-entropy!uw-evolution!joe (**) The third BITNET address will be invalid as of Dec. 1, 1987 when WISCVM ceases to be a relay machine between BITNET and ARPANET.