This Porcelain crab transcriptome is compared to only Daphnia and two insects
(in the figure I looked at), so it is much narrower in species scope than that
recent Arthropod phylogeny paper. On the other hand it is comparing 19,000 EST
clusters (~genes), whereas the Nature paper compared only ~60 genes. My take,
and I'm not a phylogenist, is these are both accurate interpretations of their
data, but neither is a complete or final determination of the phylogenies.
We need more data for that :)
I just took another look at the phylo tree in Regier et al Nature paper and
it seems in agreement with malacostracan (crab) being more distant from
insects than branchiopoda (daphnia).
|From dobbard from staffmail.ed.ac.uk Fri Feb 19 16:01:30 2010
|Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 21:01:14 +0000
|From: Darren Obbard <dobbard from staffmail.ed.ac.uk>
|To: Don Gilbert <gilbertd from bio.indiana.edu>
|Subject: Re: [Arthropod] New crustacean gene set: Porcelain crab
| transcriptome paper
||> Among other results here, they support the pancrustacea hypothesis and
|> suggest that branchiopod crustaceans (daphnia) may be more closely related
|> to insects than other malacostracan crustaceans (por. crab).
||Does this mean we don't believe "Xenocarida as the long-sought sister
|group to the Hexapoda"?
|Institute of Evolutionary Biology
|University of Edinburgh, UK