Forums:
It seems this group died a natural death due to lack of initiatives. Are we going to see any progress before we meet again at ICD9? Here is a small trigger on the wing terminology again. How to interpret this wing? R2 and R3 as separate veins?
File attachments:
Re: Is this group/project dead?
Dear Jostein,
I am not sure on the future of the Mycetophylo as originally proposed, I have considered this a bit with Jan. Chris is dedicated, for what I know, to acrocerids now. We should keep on an agenda of having an integrated team, anyway, for a long term study on Mycetophilidae systematics worldwide. I am not any more in administration, so it's slightly better for me now. We maybe could create task forces with different responsibilities—key for the genera, comparative morphology of body parts, molecular studies etc.
Your point is interesting. My understanding is that there is neither R2 or R3 in Sciaroidea. The Protorhyphidae have both, R2+3 and R4, the former originating basal to r-m, the later originating distal to r-m. The recent Anisopodidae have clearly a single branch from Rs before r-m, there is no reason to not interpret it as R2+3. The Bibionidae and the Sciaroidea with branched Rs always have much beyond r-m and there is no reason to not interpret it as R4. Of course this demands that each of the sister-groups (Anisopodidae and Bibionidae+Sciaroidea) have lost a different one of the Rs branches, what is uncommon. But accepting R4 in Anisopodidae or R2+3 in Sciaroidea would demand losing one of the branches anyway and displacing it.
Happy dipterological and personal new year to everybody!
Dalton
Prof.Dr. Dalton de Souza Amorim Depto. de Biologia - FFCLRP/USP
Av. Bandeirantes 3900
14.040-901 Ribeirão Preto SP
55.16.3315.3706
dsamorim@usp.br
--
Re: Is this group/project dead?
Since nothing has happened in two years, I presume nothing is going to
branched Rs always have much beyond r-m and there is no reason to nothappen. It's a pity, but often the case. Anybody has any idea how to revive
it considering different ambitions and agendas we have?
interpret it as R4.
You are forgetting Paraxymyiidae/Eomycetophilidae etc. To me, it is easier
to consider it R2+3, however, fact that any morphological character is just
a change of spatio-temporal pattern of gene expression casts great doubt on
any simple homology
Cheers,
Vlad
--
Dr Vladimir Blagoderov, FLS, FRMS
Manager of Sackler Biodiversity Imaging Lab
Core Research Labs
The Natural History Museum
Cromwell Road, London
SW7 5BD, UK
Tel: +44 (0) 207 942 6629 (office)
Tel: +44 (0) 207 942 6895 (SBIL)
Fax: +44 (0) 207 942 5229
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/our-science/departments-and-staff/core-research-lab...
e-mail:
vlab@nhm.ac.uk
vblago@gmail.com
Fungus Gnats Online:
www.sciaroidea.info
On 3 January 2017 at 13:18, dsamorim <dsamorim@usp.br> wrote:
Re: Is this group/project dead?
Vlad,
I would support any initiative that would help bringing together specimens, people, and approaches. Vlad, step ahead!
Advocating gene-interference would become a universal justification of whatever non-parsimonious hypotheses of homology. Paraxymyia shows a condition similar to Vymrhyphus , R2+3 before r-m and R4 more distally, hence reinforces the interpretation of R4 in Sciaroidea. Eomycetophila has R2+3 only slightly displaced in relation to r-m, and a cleyr, distal R4. Bibionids (and ditomyiids etc.) have a distal R4; other cases of R4 just distal to r-m (e.g., some mycetophilids) are very high in the phylogeny, not reflecting ground-plan.
I think this is only sticking to a tradition of classic misunderstanding homology, the evidence is pretty obvious.
Dalton
Prof.Dr. Dalton de Souza Amorim Depto. de Biologia - FFCLRP/USP
Av. Bandeirantes 3900
14.040-901 Ribeirão Preto SP
55.16.3315.3706
dsamorim@usp.br
--
Add new comment