Phasmida

[Dr. Mark A. Metz]

Hmmmmmm.  Perhaps the graphic was not completely explanatory without an
outgroup included.

I think the graphic is only phasmid (ingroup) taxa.  Since Whiting's
hypothesis is that the basal phasmid was wingless the basal node carries the
wingless state.  But the ancestor to the Phasmida is winged (not depicted in
the graphic) so the phasmids lost flight (synapomorphy for phasmida on
Whiting tree), then regained it four times, with two reversals.

Make sense?

==============================================
Dr. Mark A. Metz
Assistant Curator
Frost Entomological Museum
The Pennsylvania State University
Department of Entomology
501 Agricultural Sciences & Industries (ASI)
University Park, Pennsylvania 16802  USA
(814) 863-2865
(814) 865-3048 fax
mametz at psu.edu

Frost Museum:
http://www.ento.psu.edu/home/Frost/index.HTML
==============================================
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lynn Raw" <lynn.raw at VIRGIN.NET>
To: <TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG>
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 1:48 PM
Subject: Re: [TAXACOM] Time to update taxonomy?


> ----- Original Message -----
> christian thompson wrote:
>
> > DNA taxonomy is wonderful, if you believe everything you read in NATURE
> > et cetera. A week ago it proved that species can learn to fly again
> > after they lost their wings!
>
>
> I am puzzled. Is this illustration, "the big wing switch"on the link
below,
> from the Nature article mentioned?
>
>  http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993269
>
> If so, can anyone explain to me just where wings were lost and regained.
>
> I see four separate origins of wings and two subsequent losses but no
> regaining of wings after they were lost. I haven't read the article but
was
> shown the cladogram (in an article in New Scientist) by a colleague who
> asked this same question.
>
> Some simple explanation would be appreciated. After all these prestigious
> journals can hardly be wrong, can they?
>
> Lynn Raw
> London, UK
>