Abstract
Mooi & Gill (2010) have prised open the cap of the molecular systematics vial and caused a debate to take-off in the ichthyological community. Molecular trees and their supporting evidence are the first two items to leave this Pandora’s box, closely followed by DNA barcoding and DNA taxonomy. In short, the debate is fuelled by the nature of molecular data: can nucleotide sequences provide the necessary evidence for relationship? The majority (Wiley et al., 2011) believe that DNA contains informative data; however, in our view, they have failed to ascertain the truth of their claim. Not all data are informative. Data may provide supporting evidence, conflicting evidence, or no evidence at all. Assuming that all data are informative apriori to analysis is a theoretical position, not an empirical one. We claim that systematics is, quite the contrary, empirical, and relies on evidence rather than on implicit measurements of data. Consequently, this assertion leads back to the original question of evidence in molecular systematics, namely molecular homology.
References
Agassiz, L. (1859) An essay on classification. London: Longman, Brown, Green, Longmans Trübner & Co.
Ebach, M.C. & Williams, D.M. (2005) Molecular systematics is not genetics. Rivista di Biologia, 98, 373–376.
Ebach, M.C. & de Carvalho, M.R. (2010) Anti-intellectualism in the DNA barcoding enterprise. Zoologia, 27, 165–178.
Farris, J.S. (1979) The information content of the phylogenetic system. Systematic Biology, 28, 483–519.
Mooi, R.D. & Gill, A.C. (2010) Phylogenies without synapomorphies---a crisis in fish systematics: time to show some character. Zootaxa, 2450, 26–40.
Nelson, G.J. (1978) Professor Michener on phenetics--old and new. Systematic Zoology, 27, 104–112.
Nelson, G. & Platnick, N.I. (1981) Systematics and Biogeography: Cladistics and Vicariance. New York: Columbia University Press. 64 · Zootaxa 2946 © 2011 EBACH ET AL. Magnolia Press
Patterson, C. (1982) Morphological characters and homology. In: Joysey, K.A. & Friday, A.E. (Eds), Problems of Phylogenetic Reconstruction. Academic Press, London, pp. 21–74.
de Pinna, M.C.C. (1991) Concepts and tests of homology in the cladistic paradigm. Cladistics, 7, 367–394.
Rieppel, O. & Kearney, M. (2002) Similarity. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 75, 59–82.
Scotland, R.W., Olmstead, R.G. & Bennett, J.R. (2003) Phylogeny reconstruction: the role of morphology. Systematic Biology, 52, 539–548.
Sneath, P.H.A. & Sokal, R.R. (1973) Numerical taxonomy: the Principles and Practice of Numerical Classification. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.
Wiley, E.O., Chakrabarty, P., Craig, M.T., Davis, M.P., Holcroft, N.I., Mayden, R.L. & Smith, W.L. (2011) Will the real phylogeneticists please stand up? Zootaxa, 2946, 7–16.
Will, K.W., Mishler, B.D. & Wheeler, Q.D. (2005) The perils of DNA barcoding and the need for integrative taxonomy. Systematic Biology, 54, 844–851.
Williams, D.M. & Ebach, M.C. (2004) The reform of palaeontology and the rise of biogeography—25 years after ‘Ontogeny, phylogeny, paleontology and the biogenetic law’ (Nelson, 1978). Journal of Biogeography, 31, 685–712.