Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9057 total)
73 online now:
PaulK, xongsmith (2 members, 71 visitors)
Newest Member: drlove
Post Volume: Total: 889,740 Year: 852/6,534 Month: 852/682 Week: 87/445 Day: 3/30 Hour: 1/1

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   The Mammuthus Moment: How to tell a sloth from another sloth
Inactive Member

Message 4 of 17 (109086)
05-18-2004 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Admin
05-16-2004 5:16 PM

Does all the data contradict or support the conclusions, i.e., morphologically and molecularly, do they say the same thing? If not, is there something wrong with one methodology? Both? And what should be done next?

This seems to be the crux of the matter. It seems that convergent evolution may limit the construction of phylogenies by morphology alone. It would seem to me that molecular phyolgenies based on DNA studies would more accurately measure divergence times relative to different lineages. I would assumed that convergent evolution of morphology is much more common than two species developing the same exact mutations. Being that the two species were in different geographic areas, they may have evolved into similar niches through the same changes in morphology. However, speciation in the separate geographic areas should not involve the same mutations (but the same genes could have been affected).

My hypothesis is that ground sloths adapted to arboreal life styles among two different groups. This is a tough hypothesis to test, as I am guessing that the numerous genera mentioned in the column represent several fossil species. Further fossil finds may not differentiate Mylodon and Nothrotheriops, but the biogeographic isolation of the two groups may help to elucidate the problem somewhat. Nonetheless, a very muddled picture indeed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Admin, posted 05-16-2004 5:16 PM Admin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by jar, posted 05-18-2004 5:09 PM Loudmouth has responded

Inactive Member

Message 6 of 17 (109103)
05-18-2004 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by jar
05-18-2004 5:09 PM

I'm not sure that it would be unreasonable to accept multiple independant development of behavior such as an aboreal life. After all there are numerous examples of multiple independant inventions nearly everwhere we look.

Totally agree (which I hope is apparent in my post). However, convergent morphology shouldn't be due to convergent mutations, which is why I think the DNA sequences are more accurate than phylogenies constructed from morphology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by jar, posted 05-18-2004 5:09 PM jar has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Mammuthus, posted 06-01-2004 8:05 AM Loudmouth has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022