We hope that our book addresses some of the more important issues in systematics and biogeography, as well as getting your feedback. The task will be an arduous one as we hope to cover the following topics recently discussed in the literature and on this blog:
We hope that this interactive experiment in science writing ends in a well rounded and balanced text. Let the writing commence!Defining Relationship
Bortoft's Intrinsic & Extrinsic Thinking in systematics and biogeography
Complexity and Classification
Homology versus Similarity
Paraphyly and Monophyly
Phenetics versus Natural Classifications
Phylocode and Artificial Classifications
Molecules and Morphology
DNA Follies and the Thin Blue Line
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!
ReplyDeleteI'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?
ReplyDeleteWe 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 Bininda-Emonds (2004). 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).
ReplyDeleteWe wish to investigate how systematists and biogeographers think in terms of relationship. By defining relationship, 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.
References
Ebach, M.C. & McNamara, K.J. (2002). A systematic revision of the family Harpetidae (Trilobita). Records of the Western Australian Museum, 21:235-267.
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.