...The insect wing has evolved several times in several different lineages.
I don't know much about evolutionary biological development, but I was under the Impression that wings were present in insect ancestory since the beginning of it's divergence from Crustacea. The insects that do not have wings evolved to that stage from winged ancestors (i.e. siphonaptera from mecoptera). I thought that Stoneflies had evolved from a protelytropteran like ancestor along with many other major orders of insecta all containing wings.
Wouldn't it be pointless to try to experiment on wing development on an insect that is believed to have recieved it's wings from an ancestor of a different taxa? I believe that my information is dated, and I would be very grateful if you could give me a link to a better phylogenetic tree.
Aren't Stoneflies on the Neopterous stock and the "...other aqautic nymphs..." that Matthew Holm is referring to in the Paleopterous stock. So these insects aren't even monopyletic right? Then what would be point of even mentioning examples from other insects if it isn't even in the lineage of the insect in question?
If your statement
The insect wing has evolved several times in different lineages
is true than why would James Marden be expermenting with wing development when he could be studying the evolutionary development of the stoneflies feet. [qoute]...the feet are covered with water-resistant hairs and are filled with gas[/qoute] Which seems to be very specific to the stonefly. Is it because if the feet were not how they are now the stonefly would have no way to float on the water? It kinda creates an irriducible complexity issue. If it weren't for the feet than the wings would be pointless, why doesn't the biologist try to tackle the harder question? If he solved this tougher question than his hypothesis would be easier to prove.
Thank you so much for the links I really enjoyed watching the videos.