Problems of taxonomy and phylogeny

Once again, I would like to emphasize that I am not at all opposed to the use of competent and thoughtful use of molecular mechanics in synthesis with other approaches.

Fortunately, there are also such works - "total evidence phylogeny". Here are a couple of examples I know of (there are probably many others):

http://users.prf.jcu.cz/aescu/Fric_et_al_2...a-Phengaris.pdf

http://193.166.3.2/pub/sci/bio/life/insect...ae/nympphyl.pdf

As for the first work, I can only say that it was written almost exclusively on the basis of molecular mechanics. and the combination of maculines and fengaris does not fit into any framework - the genitals, drawing, structure of scales, venation of fengaris is completely different from the same in maculines. I have studied both genera, and I can confidently judge that these are different genera, and not one.

Fortunately, there are also such works - "total evidence phylogeny". Here are a couple of examples I know of (there are probably many others):

http://users.prf.jcu.cz/aescu/Fric_et_al_2...a-Phengaris.pdf

http://193.166.3.2/pub/sci/bio/life/insect...ae/nympphyl.pdf

That is, you want to say that the work (Increased gene sampling yields robust support for higher-level clades within Bombycoidea (Lepidoptera), in contrast to these ("fortunately"), is useless and nothing worthwhile should be expected from it? Since there is "no word about morphology"?
I am not an expert in this field, but I read the article, and it became clear that it is based on the database of information that was "dug up" by morphologists, and led to the accumulation of data with their contradictions unsolvable by the morphological approach ALONE.

This is the place where people came, of course, well acquainted with the material accumulated by morphologists (and not just suckers, as they are trying to present here), and applying a molecular biological approach, about the power of which (and about the limitations too) you can talk a lot, but not here, and not now, and "raked" some problems have shown how some groups are related to others, and which are alien, and have come closer to building a NATURAL phylogenetic tree, which is the highest achievement and task in this area.

Is this the final version of the mutual relations of the studied groups? No, and the authors understand it. It will be necessary, and a more powerful approach (that is, involving more genes) will be applied.

Whether we call certain groups, groups, branches, branches, and so on, sub -, super -, or just families, this is in a sense a convention that is convenient primarily for cataloging all species with some reflection of their kinship.

That is, you want to say that the work (Increased gene sampling yields robust support for higher-level clades within Bombycoidea (Lepidoptera), in contrast to these ("fortunately"), is useless and nothing worthwhile should be expected from it? Since there is "no word about morphology"?
I am not an expert in this field, but I read the article, and it became clear that it is based on the database of information that was "dug up" by morphologists, and led to the accumulation of data with their contradictions unsolvable by the morphological approach ALONE.

This is the place where people came, of course, well acquainted with the material accumulated by morphologists (and not just suckers, as they are trying to present here), and applying a molecular biological approach, about the power of which (and about the limitations too) you can talk a lot, but not here, and not now, and "raked" some problems have shown how some groups are related to others, and which are alien, and have come closer to building a NATURAL phylogenetic tree, which is the highest achievement and task in this area.

Is this the final version of the mutual relations of the studied groups? No, and the authors understand it. It will be necessary, and a more powerful approach (that is, involving more genes) will be applied.

Whether we call certain groups, groups, branches, branches, and so on, sub -, super -, or just families, this is in a sense a convention that is convenient primarily for cataloging all species with some reflection of their kinship.

let's not confuse a NATURAL but still PHYLOGENETIC tree with a system. build as many trees as you want-the flag is in your hands. but you don't need to try trees on systems.

The message was edited rhopalocera.com - 22.01.2011 21: 55

That is, you want to say that the work (Increased gene sampling yields robust support for higher-level clades within Bombycoidea (Lepidoptera), in contrast to these ("fortunately"), is useless and nothing worthwhile should be expected from it?

I didn't mean to say that. And didn't say.

As for the first work, I can only say that it was written almost exclusively on the basis of molecular mechanics.

"Our analysis was based on the combination of a morphological
data matrix from Pech et al. (2004) and two-gene
alignment from Als et al. (2004). The dataset of Pech et al.
(2004) included 20 taxa of Maculinea, three Phengaris and
eleven outgroups; that of Als et al. (2004) included 32
samples of Maculinea, three Phengaris and 13 outgroups." ©

  

This is the place where people came, of course, well acquainted with the material accumulated by morphologists (and not just suckers, as they are trying to present here), and applying a molecular biological approach, about the power of which (and about the limitations too) you can talk a lot, but not here, and not now, and "raked" some problems have shown how some groups are related to others, and which are alien, and have come closer to building a NATURAL phylogenetic tree, which is the highest achievement and task in this area.

This is ideal. In fact, unfortunately, this is not always the case. About that and talk.

This is ideal. In fact, unfortunately, this is not always the case. That's what we're talking about.

You say the general words of a person who is dissatisfied that they have been disturbed (and how they will be disturbed, give time).

Let's see what exactly went wrong in this article.

let's not confuse a NATURAL but still PHYLOGENETIC tree with a system. build as many trees as you want-the flag is in your hands. but you don't need to try trees on systems.

How is this "not necessary"?
And what is a "system" that is not based on a phylogenetic tree?
Nothing, absolutely nothing.

How is this "not necessary"?
And what is a "system" that is not based on a phylogenetic tree?
Nothing, absolutely nothing.

Good. tell us about what phylogeny is and what the system is. I'll listen to something interesting.

New article from V. A. Lukhtanov. A very comprehensive study.

File/s:



 Leptidea_juvernica_2011_Nature_communications.pdf

size: 794.63 k
number of downloads: 19674

New article from V. A. Lukhtanov. A very comprehensive study.

Life has become better, life has become more fun!

Perhaps some of the experts will be interested in the article (I don't remember that it was previously referenced here):
http://narod.ru/disk/22177511001/MTNDB%5D2.0.CO%3B2.pdf.html

Probably, you should not ignore the bibliographic list at the end of the article.

Perhaps some of the experts (in particular, on golubyanka) will be interested in articles (I don't remember that they were previously referenced here):


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/science/...erfly.html?_r=1


http://rghost.ru/19271461

Perhaps some of the experts (in particular, on golubyanka) will be interested in articles (I don't remember that they were previously referenced here):

http://molbiol.ru/forums/index.php?showtop...E8%EB%E0%F1%FC#

This post was edited by Pirx - 26.08.2011 01: 00

Yes, I slept through this topic at one time, I repent...

Dear forumchane! Tell me, please, who in Russia is engaged in molecular genetic analysis of invertebrate species? I need this to perform a comparative analysis of the complex of species for the purpose of revision. Thank you in advance.