This is one of those topics I wish Darren Naish would give an opinion on. I normally like to start the day with a precambrian paper of some kind, but I don't see one I'm, uh, digging. However, this bun fight is sticky and interesting.
O'Leary et al published a paper on the evolution of placental mammals across the KT/K-Pg boundary (The Placental Mammal Ancestor and the Post–K-Pg Radiation of Placentals). They used both genomic and phenomic data to create a supermatrix to produce a phylogeny of placental mammals using 86 different critters and over 4500 characters. They used far, far more data than any study before, from what I gather. One of the radical arguments is there was one (*1*) ancestor to modern placentals.
O'Leary et al published a paper on the evolution of placental mammals across the KT/K-Pg boundary (The Placental Mammal Ancestor and the Post–K-Pg Radiation of Placentals). They used both genomic and phenomic data to create a supermatrix to produce a phylogeny of placental mammals using 86 different critters and over 4500 characters. They used far, far more data than any study before, from what I gather. One of the radical arguments is there was one (*1*) ancestor to modern placentals.
There has now been a critique of the paper (Technical Comment on “The Placental Mammal Ancestor and the Post–K-Pg Radiation of Placentals". The basic theme is O'Leary et al probably overreached with their analysis. One of the cautions stated is similar lifestyles will cause convergent evolution.
The reply from the original authors is here (Response to Comment on “The Placental Mammal Ancestor and the Post–K-Pg Radiation of Placentals”) where they offer their counter arguments. I am not so sure I buy into the comment of "Accumulated negative evidence indicates that [placental] fossils are absent." That comment strikes me as very wrong.
But then, I am not an expert and this is why I wish Darren would comment.
But then, I am not an expert and this is why I wish Darren would comment.
No comments:
Post a Comment