-- Studying the phylogeny of freshwater eels

1
?????,???????????? -- Studying the phylogeny of
freshwater eels
???? ????? ? ? ?
2
The genus Anguilla
3
(No Transcript)
4
(No Transcript)
5
Ege (1939) Dana Report
6
Ege (1939) Dana Report
7
Ege (1939) Dana Report
8
I
II
III
IV
Ege (1939) Dana Report
9
NJ tree
ML tree
10
(No Transcript)
11
Tree length 17
12
27.0 27.0 25.8 28.2 27.3 27.0 28.2 27.2 25.9 29.7
26.9 27.0 29.0 30.2 30.1 29.0 30.3 30.3
Tree length 14.7
27.3
27.3
13
Coding the original shape data as discrete values
based on some criterion and treating them as
input data for cladistic parsimony analyses (e.g.
Fink Zelditch, 1995) was questioned in several
aspects (Rohlf, 1998 Adams Rosenberg, 1998).
An alternative approach is to use phylogenetic
methods that can utilize morphometric data in its
original form rather than forcing them into
integer codes (Rohlf, 2002).
14
27.0 27.0 25.8 28.2 27.3 27.0 28.2 27.2 25.9 29.7
26.9 27.0 29.0 30.2 30.1 29.0 30.3 30.3
Tree length 14.7
15
(No Transcript)
16
A 0,3,0
A
2
5
3
3
C
1
B
C 4,0,0
B 0,0,0
4
17
(No Transcript)
18
(No Transcript)
19
(No Transcript)
20
(No Transcript)
21
(No Transcript)
22
Journal of Evolutionary Biology Reviewer
1 Most importantly, there are several serious
issues with the quality of the data. The
molecular phylogeny presented in Fig. 2
designates four groupings that are defined based
on the molecular data (A-D). However the nodes
supporting these grouping are not well supported
by bootstrap support at all - three are below 50
and one is only 55. I would have stoped the
study right here, since all further conclusions
and analyses are highly suspect since they are
based on extremely weak initial support for the
molecular phylogeny. Moreover, the regression
analyses of the Ege morphological traits does not
take any phylogenetic history into consideration
and ignores 10 years of work on the "comparative
method".
23
Journal of Evolutionary Biology Editor Thank
you very much for the clarification. I agree that
reviewer could have been more clearer in his
comments, and you are quite correct that his
views can be contested. However, at this stage,
the file of ms 000195 has been closed, and I am
not in position of changing my earlier
decision. However, given the high level of
expertise of the reviewer, the misunderstanding
here is most likely stemming from the way you
have presented your case. If you feel that you
can improve the presentation and that the
criticism of the reviewer ifs unjustified, I will
allow you to resubmit your work to JEB. However,
if you decide to do this, please make sure that
you are crystal clear in the points where you
think the referee has misunderstood you. You may
suggest potential reviewers if you resubmit (the
ms will be treated as a new submission.
24
Journal of Evolutionary Biology second
submission Reviewer 1 This is a detail rich
paper with no major flaws in the analysis or
interpretation of the data. It is nice and
re-assuring that the morphometric phylogeny of
eels is now consistent with molecular data.
However, this does not advance our knowledge on
the phylogeny of eels substantially because a
molecular phylogeny should always be preferred
over morphological analyses if there is doubt.
Therefore, I see the scope of the paper as too
limited for a journal that covers important
questions of general evolutionary biology such as
JEB.
25
Journal of Evolutionary Biology second
submission Reviewer 2 There are major problems
with the writing of the paper. Authors should
first consult a native English speaker with a
good background in phylogenetics. With his/her
help, the entire manuscript should be rewritten
so that in each sentence it is entirely clear
what the authors intend to say. As it stands now,
so much of the writing is either unclear or
plainly wrong that I will not take the time to
try and correct everything with reference to a
pdf. Here are some examples p.2., l.14
"approach should be extremely useful" - for what
purpose? p.3,l.21-22 what do you mean by "p
values less than 0.001"? - Does this mean
topologies differed significantly? Why not say so?
26
Journal of Evolutionary Biology second
submission Reviewer 2 p.4,l.1 do you mean
"none of the 4 groups proposed by Ege is
monophyletic" or do you mean " not all of the 4
groups are monophyletic? p.4,l.4/6 what are
"two different groups species"? Two species
belonging to different groups? In general if
you use "significantly" as an adverb, place it
directly after the verb! p.10,l.9 replace
"topology" by "position" (a single species can
show no topology) p.10, l.21 "loses very less
information" - makes no sense. Same in line 7,
p.11.
27
Journal of Evolutionary Biology second
submission Reviewer 2 p.12,l.14-22 paragraph
is impossible to follow without a drawing to
illustrate the character in question p.13,l.4
"group b,e f consist of ..." - delete "both"
(you are listing three!) p.14,l.12 replace
"sequentially" by "consequently p.15, l.2
morphological characters were employed or used
for phylogenetic reconstruction (not
"applied") p.15,l.14 "both have similar
agreement" - replace by "show good agreement
28
Journal of Evolutionary Biology second
submission Editor Although I think your that
you have clarified your presentation so as that
the misunderstading that surfaced during the
previous round of refereeing is not anymore
present, both reviews were quite critical about
your paper. Both of the referees meant that the
language would require considerable attention
beyond any editorial copy editing. Also, the
other referee expressed a view that although
interesting, the paper might be better suited for
some more taxonomically orientated journal. Given
the two negative referee reports, this means that
I cannot accept this paper for publication in the
Journal of Evolutionary Biology.
29
Zoologica Scripta Reviewer 2 1. This attempt
to make phylogeny using morphological characters
is new. However, I doubted that the characters
of genus Anguilla can be used for this method,
because there were two molecular phylogeny (Lin
et al. 2001a Aoyama et al. 2001) with different
results. I think that you should apply other
fish groups which were clearly estimated by
molecular phylogeny trees to these method rather
than genus Anguilla. 5. It is necessary to
discuss evolution of morphological characters
of freshwater eel. Because this paper discussed
only congruence between morphological and
molecular phylogeny trees estimated by yourself.
30
?? ???? ??? ??? ??? ???? ??? ??? ???
??? ??? ???? ???
31
(No Transcript)
32
(No Transcript)
33
(No Transcript)
34
(No Transcript)
35
(No Transcript)