|
Post by pleecan (Peter Lee) on Jan 24, 2014 10:31:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Joe Botting on Feb 17, 2014 11:35:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by pleecan (Peter Lee) on Feb 20, 2014 7:17:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Joe Botting on Feb 20, 2014 9:28:18 GMT -5
Veerry interrrresting... I hadn't heard of that one, thanks. It seems to be highlighting a lot of the potential issues with the discovery of important specimens as well.
|
|
|
Post by pleecan (Peter Lee) on Feb 23, 2014 16:38:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by pleecan (Peter Lee) on Feb 23, 2014 16:40:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Joe Botting on Feb 23, 2014 18:11:12 GMT -5
Well, well... I've been arguing something similar recently, and I'm not the only one. Sponges may be simple, but they're too complex, and in the wrong sorts of ways, to be the base of animal evolution. Everything is now pointing towards them being a monophyletic group, in which case their morphology doesn't mean much at all - it could easily be derived. See here, for example: mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/01/31/molbev.msu057.shortIt's important to remember, though, that genetic studies have thrown up this result before, together with several other configurations, but they normally end up being rejected by subsequent studies. It wouldn't surprise me at all if we end up with a situation where ctenophores, sponges and cnidarians form one clade, a sister group to Bilateria. I've also got a paper about to come out in Chinese Science Bulletin about tetraradial symmetry being primitive... it's getting on the cover, so I should be able to post links to some news stories when it happens.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Botting on Feb 23, 2014 18:12:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by pleecan (Peter Lee) on Feb 24, 2014 17:26:13 GMT -5
That is Great Joe! Looking forward to your paper! Well, well... I've been arguing something similar recently, and I'm not the only one. Sponges may be simple, but they're too complex, and in the wrong sorts of ways, to be the base of animal evolution. Everything is now pointing towards them being a monophyletic group, in which case their morphology doesn't mean much at all - it could easily be derived. See here, for example: mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/01/31/molbev.msu057.shortIt's important to remember, though, that genetic studies have thrown up this result before, together with several other configurations, but they normally end up being rejected by subsequent studies. It wouldn't surprise me at all if we end up with a situation where ctenophores, sponges and cnidarians form one clade, a sister group to Bilateria. I've also got a paper about to come out in Chinese Science Bulletin about tetraradial symmetry being primitive... it's getting on the cover, so I should be able to post links to some news stories when it happens.
|
|
|
Post by pleecan (Peter Lee) on Feb 24, 2014 17:28:59 GMT -5
Congratulations Joe!!
|
|
|
Post by ammocarbsteve on Mar 1, 2014 7:53:18 GMT -5
I'll second that Joe...well done.... It must be great to get your research, results and opinions published...
|
|
|
Post by Joe Botting on Mar 2, 2014 17:16:51 GMT -5
I'll second that Joe...well done.... It must be great to get your research, results and opinions published... Thanks Steve. yes, it's what we do it for, really. It's going to be very interesting seeing if there is a response to this one, though. )
|
|
|
Post by pleecan (Peter Lee) on Mar 5, 2014 11:09:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by pleecan (Peter Lee) on Mar 5, 2014 11:12:20 GMT -5
Today, Dr. Jennifer Hoyal Cuthill presents on 'Mathematical models of the morphology of Ediacaran fronds: implications for phylogeny, disparity and the evolution of architectural complexity in an extinct fractal clade' youtu.be/3bZhJIgijDw
|
|
|
Post by pleecan (Peter Lee) on Mar 5, 2014 11:12:46 GMT -5
A Doushantuo-type acritarch assemblage from the Ediacaran BiskopÄs Fm, Norway - Peter Adamson, University of Cambridge youtu.be/KwobnPidJEE
|
|