In article <3grdad$9se at jake.esu.edu> truhnke at esu.edu (Tim Ruhnke) writes:
>>didn't read the ijp papers. not so disturbed about the search for common
>themes in the evolution of parasitic protists, even though they might be
>hard to find. i guess i'm more disturbed that folks that are interested
>in studying evolution either a: don't know about the importance of
>common phylgenetic origins when studying evolution or b: do know, but are
>not impressed with its significance.
The you _should_ read the papers. Esp. those w.r.t the protists.
There is no reference by the authors to the various phylogenies out
there regarding the apicomplexans (e.g., Barta's and my own),
regarding the diplomonads (e.g., Leipe's and my own), the ciliates
(e.g., Lipscomb's and Lynn's) etc etc.
It is rife with wild specualtion!!!
Evolutionary systematics (i.e., speculation) has been criticized many
times as being 90% art and 10% science. It is appropriate that Cox
likens himself to an Impressionist painter!!
That is, ignore reality, ignore the data, ignore others' work and
you can publish damn near anything you want about the evolution of
Mark E. Siddall "I don't mind a parasite...
mes at vims.edu I object to a cut-rate one"
Virginia Inst. Marine Sci. - Rick
Gloucester Point, VA, 23062