There are many ways to say "Oh #!@*! My group is paraphyletic! The following is perhaps the most eloquent:
- "These recent fossils [Palaeozoic ‘acanthodians’] started to make us question: are these a natural group or are we looking at a bunch of organisms closely related to the common ancestor of all jawed vertebrates?" says Brazeau. "It's tempting to put them all into one group; however, they might come from different groups but all look very similar." This, Brazeau adds, is a common problem" (Nature 2009, 457:234).
- "Ptomacanthus is placed as a basal stem chondrichthyan, but this result should be viewed with caution. A large part of the acanthodians, including Acanthodes, form a cohesive monophyletic group on the osteichthyan stem. However, the position of Ptomacanthus is problematical" (Brazeau 2009:307).
- "Current conceptions of gnathostome phylogeny depict a rather simplistic arrangement of nominally monophyletic and, apparently, morphologically disparate groups. The emerging picture of acanthodian (and perhaps placoderm) paraphyly does not overturn a general consensus about gnathostome interrelationships. Instead, it populates the long, naked internal branches, revealing a much richer picture of character evolution in early gnathostomes" (Brazeau 2009:307).
What any systemtist should do - re-classify the osteichthyans and chondrichthyans in light of this new evidence. Brazeau is naive to suggest that this discovery will "...not overturn a general consensus about gnathostome interrelationships" If Ptomacanthus is more closely related to chondrichthyans then bang goes the acanthodians. They need to be reclassified along with the chondrichthyans. But rather than saying the obvious, Brazeau descends into evolutionary explanation "... populates the long, naked internal branches, revealing a much richer picture of character evolution in early gnathostomes". No it does not reveal anything other than that Ptomacanthus is a chondrichthyan and that acanthodians are paraphyletic! And this is exactly what the media has picked on:
- "The study also suggests that some acanthodians are ancestors to all modern jawed vertebrates" (BBC Online, 19 January 2009).
I place Brazeau (2009) as the first Paraphyly Watch entry for 2009 (and the first in the race for the Pewter Leprechaun) for mis-using paraphyly. Rather than reclassifying the gnathasomes, Brazeau (2009) as alluded to a missing link (which admittedly could have been done without the cladistic and phenetic analyses).
References
Martin D. Brazeau (2009). The braincase and jaws of a Devonian ‘acanthodian’ and modern gnathostome origins Nature, 457 (7227), 305-308 DOI: 10.1038/nature07436
6 comments:
I would respond point-by-point, but I assume that most literate people will recognize misattribution when they see it (especially when it is obvious from the quoted material). However, progress in this area may be greatly slowed if you list the wrong paper and link in the references.
Correct reference:
Brazeau, M.D. 2009. The braincase and jaws of a Devonian 'acanthodian' and the origin of modern gnathostomes. Nature 457:305-308.
We referenced the wrong Nature article in error. Apologies.
So, where else did we go wrong?
The other paper is probably more deserving of a Pewter Leprechaun, but it wasn't published in 2009, so I guess it's not qualified. ;-)
I'll post a response on my own blog some time this week. It needs content anyway.
Okay. At long last, my response is up. I'm sorry if I sound snarky, but I did find some of the stuff you accused me of a tad annoying and unwarranted.
The post is here: http://lancelet.blogspot.com/2009/08/dubious-honour.html
So, my response is finally up. Apologies for the delay. And I'll apologize for any snark, but I really did find your post annoying and mostly off-base.
Anyway, here's my reply:
http://lancelet.blogspot.com/2009/08/dubious-honour.html
The study also suggests that some acanthodians are ancestors to all modern jawed vertebrates.
Post a Comment