tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post8769224321622121265..comments2023-12-24T07:02:43.274+08:00Comments on Catalogue of Organisms: In Which, Despite Not Being The Crowd Favourite, Drosophila funebris Holds D. melanogaster Down and Kicks It Repeatedly in the TeethChristopher Taylorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11075565866351612441noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post-81809798902203742112010-04-10T22:28:51.694+08:002010-04-10T22:28:51.694+08:00Mite Monophyly Not
Actually, a distrust of mite m...Mite Monophyly Not<br /><br />Actually, a distrust of mite monophyly goes back a long way, but it took me a while to understand why.<br /><br />Although the hexapod larva and gnathosoma were considered strong linking characters, that was before it was noticed that ricinuleids have them. To me, the Shultz Acaromorpha solution was never very convincing. I've only studied one species, Pseudocellus pearsei, but relating that 'hooded tickspider' (as Fahrein et al call them in their BMC Genomics paper) to Acariformes is beyond my abilities (maybe a bit to Parasitiformes). In any case, I suspect that the hexapod larva is an ancient chelicerate developmental stage retained in three current terrestrial 'arachnid' orders. Think of how xiphosurans develop - and remember that Acariformes and Opilioacarida also have a hexapod prelarva.<br /><br />Also consider that two or three basic adaptations to life on land are inherently different between basal acariform and parasitiform 'mites': respiration (cuticular vs tracheate), the formation of the subcapitulum (deutosternum+tritosternum [mentum]) vs deutosternum), and sensory setae (trichobothria, solenidia with rows of pores vs no trichobothria, tip pore chemosensory setae) - the difference in chemosensory setae is questionable, they really aren’t well studied. There are lots of other basic differences in bauplan: being a ‘mite’ may be a grade of evolution.<br /><br />I think you need to go back into the Silurian oceans to find any common ancestor of ‘mites'. Once there, anything goes.<br /><br />Dabert et al. have a paper in press in Molecular Phylogeny and Evolution that is worth a look. The recent Regier et al. in Nature (which does not support Acaromorpha) has only a few mites, but at least a couple from each lineage. I’ve seen other papers in review with similar findings, so looks like the molecules are against mite monophyly.macromitehttp://macromite.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post-20882644094737493052010-04-10T20:19:51.368+08:002010-04-10T20:19:51.368+08:00I have added a more extensive phylogeny to the htt...I have added a more extensive phylogeny to the http://www.kimvdlinde.com/professional/DrosophilaSplit.html page. Have funAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04959216785466206447noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post-67676417949366706142010-04-10T18:43:44.115+08:002010-04-10T18:43:44.115+08:00Christopher wrote:
Sigh. It all just adds to my gr...Christopher wrote:<br /><i>Sigh. It all just adds to my growing conviction that the binomial system itself is fundamentally flawed.</i><br /><br />David Marjanović has described binomina as a "curse". I'm entirely inclined to agree.Andreas Johanssonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08802392912541974977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post-16742184523451343232010-04-10T10:36:18.926+08:002010-04-10T10:36:18.926+08:00I have a feeling that people (geneticists anyway) ...I have a feeling that people (geneticists anyway) will be calling it Drosophila regardless of what the ICZN does.<br /><br />So I think this was a bad decision since it creates a division between what taxonomists call it and what people who work with it call it. <br /><br />But maybe, for this very reason, the genus won't be split.intercostalnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post-27934521427356563342010-04-10T10:04:02.158+08:002010-04-10T10:04:02.158+08:00The reasons for raising the subgenera are pretty c...The reasons for raising the subgenera are pretty compelling, particularly for <i>Sophophora</i>. If you look at the tree that <a href="http://arthropoda.wordpress.com/2010/04/09/is-the-drosophila-actually-drosophila/" rel="nofollow">Michael reproduced</a> from Kim's supertree paper, it appears that even describing <i>Drosophila</i> in its current sense as paraphyletic is misleading - it's significantly <i>polyphyletic</i> with at least three widely separated clusters even if one was willing to accept a certain amount of paraphyly. As I said in a comment on Kim's post, I feel that the only feasible approach now is to force the issue by splitting the genus - once again, an action that is now overdue by some 35 years!<br /><br />Sigh. It all just adds to my growing conviction that the binomial system itself is fundamentally flawed.<br /><br />As regards mites, I would have thought monophyly of Acaromorpha (Acari + Ricinulei), whether "Acari" themselves are monophyletic or paraphyletic to Ricinulei, was pretty much a certainty. No other arachnids share their unique development with six-legged larvae.Christopher Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11075565866351612441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post-35311996438646775202010-04-10T01:16:03.754+08:002010-04-10T01:16:03.754+08:00No cake for Drosophila
I made my comment above be...No cake for Drosophila<br /><br />I made my comment above before reading the history and opinions at the ICZN webpage. Pretty fascinating range of opinions - not the least of which is that most would seem to see 'stability' for the rules as more important than stability for the name. I'm not sure that I agree with any of the arguments completely, but I found Pringent's points well argued.<br /><br />Recently published and in press molecular phylogenies support a diphyletic Acari (something I have long believed on morphological grounds). One colleague has already suggested recognising only one lineage as mites. So, the other 13,000 described species would be called something else? I guess I will have to review my opinions on nomenclature and phylogeny and see if they make any sense.macromitenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post-56683226165339896402010-04-10T00:23:22.672+08:002010-04-10T00:23:22.672+08:00Having your cake and eating it too?
Is there a re...Having your cake and eating it too?<br /><br />Is there a reason to raise the subgenera to genera? If there isn't a compelling reason, then I'd be inclined to ignore any generic name changes for melanogaster. Ranks are arbitrary by nature. A primary function of a taxonomy is to provide stability and retaining subgenera would seem to both maintain stability and provide sufficient phylogenetic context. If a few smaller genera are already running free, that complicates matters, but doesn't seem an insurmountable difficulty.<br /><br />Full disclosure - I have pushed to raise subgenera to genera for mites used in biological control, but the trashcan genus was already paraphyletic and even the species were misattributed there, so the whole mess needed cleaning up and not too many people get upset about a predatory mite name change.<br /><br />Also, when I taught Medical & Veterinary Entomology I used Aedes (Stegomyia), Aedes (Ochlerotatus), etc. Stegomyia does carry useful life history and epidemiological information, but it is a terrible search term. I thought the revolt of the journals a useful point in teaching - but not for the importance of systematics!macromitehttp://macromite.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post-81760742977943338892010-04-09T19:16:30.953+08:002010-04-09T19:16:30.953+08:00Christopher, you missed the same obvious point as ...Christopher, you missed the same obvious point as the commissioners:<br /><br />The genus is going to be split in four major clades. The name of the species in two clades, together 628 species, will change regardless. of the two remaining clades, the clade with funebris contains 304 species, the Sophophora subgenus contains 332 species (species counts as in original application). So, now that funebris remains the type species, the name of 28 more species are going to be changed. More over, this decision results in renaming of ALL species for which the genome is sequenced (14 species in total), instead of 3.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04959216785466206447noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5460788270738656369.post-58072228012884816662010-04-09T13:54:17.557+08:002010-04-09T13:54:17.557+08:00D'oh, you beat me to this by an hour, and with...D'oh, you beat me to this by an hour, and with a better title and insider insight... <br /><br />I'm going to sulk back to my dark room and shoot light beams through mantis shrimp eyes until I feel betterMichael Bokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01210520894431360565noreply@blogger.com