Message 2000-10-0013: Fwd: Re: RE: RE: Nathan Wilson's question

Thu, 12 Oct 2000 18:43:15 -0400

[Previous by date - Fwd: Re: RE: RE: Nathan Wilson's question]
[Next by date - Fwd: Re: RE: RE: Nathan Wilson's question]
[Previous by subject - Fwd: Re: RE: RE: Nathan Wilson's question]
[Next by subject - Fwd: Re: RE: RE: Nathan Wilson's question]

Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 18:43:15 -0400
From: Kevin de Queiroz <Dequeiroz.Kevin@NMNH.SI.EDU>
To: PhyloCode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: Fwd: Re: RE: RE: Nathan Wilson's question

Phil Wrote:

"I think that what Gerry had in mind (and he should correct me if I am =
misinterpreting) is that some of the genome of species 3 is in clade A and =
some in clade B.  If so, the least inclusive clade that
includes the full genome of species 3 is the larger one identified by
Gerry, thus the application of the name for clade Z is ambiguous."

To my way of thinking, that interpretation is incorrect.  If we're =
concerned with naming monophyletic groups of genes or genomes rather than =
species, then the species in which the genes or genomes occur are =
irrelevant.  On the other hand, if we're concerned with naming monophyletic=
 groups of species (clades), then the fact that part of the genome of =
species 3 comes from one source and another part from another means only =
that certain clades are partially overlapping in terms of their species =
composition.  It doesn't create any ambiguity regarding the application of =
the name.  The only way to reach the conclusion that the name should be =
applied to the larger clade in Gerry's example (and therefore that =
application of the name is ambiguous) is to confuse levels by substituting =
genomes for species in the definitions (which is effectively what has been =
done in the diagrams that have species 3 in two places).  Another way to =
see the error is to consider the statement "some of the genome of species =
3 is in clade A and some in clade B".  While true, what this statement =
fails to acknowledge is that the part of the genome that is in clade A is =
also in clade B, and the part of the genome that is in clade B is also in =
clade A.  The very notion of hybridization implies that that we can no =
longer treat clades A and B as entirely separate (mutually exclusive) =
entities. =20

Kevin=20
12 Oct 2000

  

Feedback to <mike@indexdata.com> is welcome!