Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9071 total)
76 online now:
Aussie, candle2, PaulK, Percy (Admin), vimesey (5 members, 71 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Upcoming Birthdays: Percy
Post Volume: Total: 893,042 Year: 4,154/6,534 Month: 368/900 Week: 74/150 Day: 5/42 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Primate cladogram evolution
caffeine
Member (Idle past 253 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


(1)
Message 6 of 9 (820577)
09-23-2017 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by RAZD
09-20-2017 8:59 AM


Re: Adding Lorisiformes -- bushbabies -- to the bush
There also seems to be some disagreement on whether Lorisiformes are a subbranch of Lemuriformes, like Indrioidea and Lemuroidea.

There is no disagreement on the phylogeny; only an irrelevant debate on terminology. Either Lorisoidea is sister to Lemuroidea, or Lorisiformes are sister to Lemuriformes; which is a meaningless distinction. These debates are irritating, since they create needless confusion. Lemuroidea can mean a variety of different things depending on the author; even if they all agree on the phylogeny.

The internal phylogeny of lemurs is not settled, and the way you have it is probably wrong (or, at least, incomplete). You're missing Daubentonia, aye-ayes, which are the sister group to all other lemurs.

The division of other lemurs into Lemuroidea and Indroidea is uncertain. I am assuming that in this classification Lemuroidea=Lemuridae, and Indroidea=all other lemurs. This is the topology you tend to get in studies of only living lemurs, but there are several extinct families of lemur from which we have DNA, since they only went extinct recently. Studies incorporating these (eg. Herera et al., 2016 and Orlando et. al 2008) tend to find indriids and lemurids to be sister groups among living lemurs; with cheirogaleids (dwarf and mouse lemurs) and lepilemurids (sportive lemurs) being successive sister groups to the lemurid-indriid clade.

Now, I'm happy to go on about the most controversial and contested parts of this phylogeny, but I'm not really sure if this is the point of the thread or not.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by RAZD, posted 09-20-2017 8:59 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by RAZD, posted 09-23-2017 1:19 PM caffeine has replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 253 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


(1)
Message 8 of 9 (820588)
09-23-2017 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by RAZD
09-23-2017 1:19 PM


Re: Adding Lorisiformes -- bushbabies -- to the bush
It would be interesting to show the different arrangements side by each. Maybe with a table?

I like the idea, but it should be emphasised that what you've shown above are not disagreements. Every taxonomist in the whole world agrees on the relationship between lemurs and galagos. There is no controversy. What you're presenting is a controversy over taxonomic rank, and is clear evidence why the concept of taxonomic rank should be abolished.

You have read this stupid, pointless, meaningless debate about rank, and it's led you to imagine a trichotomy between Lemur, Indri and Galago. But no such exists. The phylogeny is clear. Lemurs are monophyletic.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by RAZD, posted 09-23-2017 1:19 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by RAZD, posted 10-07-2017 9:24 AM caffeine has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022