tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post796225261279161597..comments2023-12-24T07:02:43.274+08:00Comments on Catalogue of Organisms: The Diversity of Ground BeetlesChristopher Taylorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11075565866351612441noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post-84287764777467413982008-11-26T00:37:00.000+08:002008-11-26T00:37:00.000+08:00Drat. Next you're going to tell me beetles are ne...Drat. Next you're going to tell me beetles are nested well within the muscoid clade!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post-2790716873482346282008-11-25T22:50:00.000+08:002008-11-25T22:50:00.000+08:00With the risk of saying too much from our unpublis...With the risk of saying too much from our unpublished data on the BToL project, it's unambiguous from several nuclear protein-coding genes (the largest molecular dataset yet) that the Cicindelinae are nested well within the remaining Carabidae, with strong statistical support.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post-82763024935098571852008-11-25T04:12:00.000+08:002008-11-25T04:12:00.000+08:00Hi Chris,I am, admittedly, not very familiar with ...Hi Chris,<BR/><BR/>I am, admittedly, not very familiar with the Old World literature; however, North American authors overwhelmingly treat tigers as a separate family. Recent examples include the current U.S. catalogue (Freitag 1999), Pearson and Vogler's 2001 book on evolution, ecology, and diversity, and the very recent U.S. field guide (Peason et al. 2006), as well as numerous smaller works. A quick perusal of recent issues of the journal <I>CICINDELA</I> also shows similar majority support for familial status by authors from North America as well as other parts of the world.<BR/><BR/>I'm not saying this means there is a consensus, only that support for subfamilial status is nowhere close to majority.<BR/><BR/>My last statement regarding tiger synapomorphies was intended to emhasize their <B>grade</B> significance rather than being supportive of carabid monophyly. Regarding the latter, it'll take much stronger molecular data than what currently exist to convince me that the phylogenetic intuitions provided by morphology are misleading.<BR/><BR/>Wonderful discussion - thanks!<BR/><BR/>regards--tedAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post-20683006104908077442008-11-24T21:42:00.000+08:002008-11-24T21:42:00.000+08:00Quite a lot of taxon names are technically plural ...<I>Quite a lot of taxon names are technically plural adjectives used as singular nouns. Plant family names, for instance, are explicitly required to be.</I><BR/><BR/>I was somewhat surprised to find from some googling that "Asteraceae" indeed seems to be more commonly treated as singular ("Asteraceae is") than plural ("Asteraceae are").<BR/><BR/>The ICBN itself, however, uses plural agreement, eg. "the Papilionaceae ... are" from Art. 18.5.Andreas Johanssonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08802392912541974977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post-79032046988742193622008-11-24T14:45:00.000+08:002008-11-24T14:45:00.000+08:00Personally, I've seen very few recent references t...Personally, I've seen very few recent references that maintain a separate Cicindelidae. Not, I'll admit, that I've really been looking. I will quibble with...<BR/><BR/><I>their exclusion from the Carabidae does not result in paraphyly for the latter</I><BR/><BR/>...because there really doesn't seem to be support either way on this one. Surprisingly few studies have been done on caraboid phylogeny as a whole, it seems - most studies have focused on specific genera or tribes. The molecular phylogeny paper I linked to in the references (Maddison <I>et al.</I>, 1999) actually found Cicindelinae in a quite derived position within Carabidae, within the sister-group to Harpalinae + Brachinini, but I'm sure you'll not be surprised to hear that even the authors of the paper didn't really buy their results in that regard, and forcing Cicindelidae outside Carabidae did not result in a significantly different level of support. A <A HREF="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0469.2005.00324.x" REL="nofollow">more recent study</A> of carabid phylogeny pretty much eliminated the tiger beetles from consideration from the start because they dicked with the analysis.<BR/><BR/>Unique features of tiger beetles wouldn't actually be informative when it comes to phylogeny, because they don't say anything about the position of tiger beetles relative to anything else. You need shared characters between taxa to establish that.Christopher Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11075565866351612441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post-20788199454451099402008-11-24T13:04:00.000+08:002008-11-24T13:04:00.000+08:00While some authors consider tiger beetles to be su...While some authors consider tiger beetles to be subordinate to the family Carabidae, there is by no means universal or even majority agreement with such position. As a clade, they are undoubtedly monophyletic, and their exclusion from the Carabidae does not result in paraphyly for the latter, so the question of whether they represent a distinct family or a subfamily of Carabidae is largely subjective based on the rank importance given to their distinguishing characteristics. They are closely related to be sure, but in my mind their unique life history and highly derived larval morphology tip the balance in favor of familial status - a view shared by many North American workers (Terry Erwin being a notable exception).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com