tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8697616560977719586.post2765438654069662028..comments2023-10-28T01:53:23.721-07:00Comments on Systematics and Biogeography: Serializing our New Book: A Question of RelationshipMalte C. Ebachhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11901602320985626811noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8697616560977719586.post-33836724637759286752008-12-09T08:58:00.000-08:002008-12-09T08:58:00.000-08:00We will try to cover as much as possible, however,...We will try to cover as much as possible, however, detailed discussions on super-trees, which combine morphological and molecular data, have already been covered in more detail elsewhere. For instance, see Williams in <A HREF="http://www.springer.com/life+sci/book/978-1-4020-2329-3?detailsPage=toc" REL="nofollow">Bininda-Emonds (2004)</A>. The above would certainly fill up another book - including studies of real organisms! Also, smaller studies using TTS have been made (e.g., Ebach,& McNamara, 2002; Williams, 1996). <BR/><BR/>We wish to investigate how systematists and biogeographers think in terms of relationship. By defining <EM>relationship</EM>, I believe we will be able to make sense of the issues currently discussed in the literature. Why, for instance, do some people believe that paraphyletic groups are relevant? We think it has to do with another interpretation (i.e., way of thinking) of 'relationship'. Systematists always use the term relationship but it is rarely ever defined. This is why, for instance, there are two incompatible definitions of monophyly - each represents a different way of thinking.<BR/><BR/>References<BR/>Ebach, M.C. & McNamara, K.J. (2002). A systematic revision of the family Harpetidae (Trilobita). Records of the Western Australian Museum, 21:235-267. <BR/>Williams, D.M. (1996) Fossil species of the diatom genus Tetracyclus (Bacillariophyta, `ellipticus' species group): morphology, interrelationships and the relevance of ontogeny. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 351: 1759–1782.Malte C. Ebachhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11901602320985626811noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8697616560977719586.post-74811450368690592472008-12-08T21:27:00.000-08:002008-12-08T21:27:00.000-08:00I'm also looking forward to it. I hope you discuss...I'm also looking forward to it. I hope you discuss some studies of real organisms done they way you argue they should be done (TTS, using a Goethean approach). Or are such studies yet to be done?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8697616560977719586.post-71329455101738690462008-12-08T18:14:00.000-08:002008-12-08T18:14:00.000-08:00Looking forward to it! I would be interested in a ...Looking forward to it! I would be interested in a chapter about creating supertrees, those that combine data from several sources, like DNA, morphology, behavioral traits. How should one go about weighting different characters, a review of what has been argued for/against using all the available evidence, gene only phylogenies, morphology-only, etc. How is homology dealt with in either cases. Perhaps that is another book in and of itself!Kevin Zelniohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14192385384151149566noreply@blogger.com