Hello, i want to ask Veeky Forums their opinion about Euarchontoglires phylogeny. I want to establish clear ideas about this, but sadly i have no resources to make an analysis on molecular grounds. But at least on morphological grounds, i want you to consider the following:
We can find 3 different structures of the postorbital ring in Euarchontoglires: The first in Ptilocercus lowii and the entire Primates order; the jugal makes a complete arch up to the superior segment of the eye socket and is itself separated from the lacrimal. The second in Glires and Scandentia minus P. lowii (Tupaiidae), here the arch formed with the jugal is much shorter and is completed by the frontal bone, which is separated from the jugal. And the third in Dermoptera, the frontal doesn't form an arch like in Primates and P. lowii, but unlike these, the jugal doesn't form a complete arch.
We can find 3 different auditory region structures within Euarchontoglires. In P. lowii, the bulla is completed by an entotympanic-caudal process of the petrosal, very similar to Primates. In the other Scandentia, the bulla is completed by a ectotympanic process of the alisphenoid, like in Glires. And finally, in Dermoptera, the bulla is completed by an ectotympanic-entotympanic process of the rostral, but this condition is plesiomorphic within Eutheria.
So, what do you think Veeky Forums? If this different structures represent true clade synapomorphies, this would mean Scandentia is polyphyletic, Primatomorpha is paraphyletic (and probably a synonym of Euarchontoglires) and Tupaiidae is the sister clade of Glires.
Joshua Morgan
Bump for rabbits
Levi Richardson
I highly doubt anyone here knows enough to formulate an argument or counter-argument on this...
Jonathan Jackson
>sadly i have no resources to make an analysis on molecular grounds why don't you extract biological sequences from public databases and compare them with the common software tools?
Angel Butler
why dont you fucking show us the pictures of those structures you are talking about
Xavier Morris
As far as I know, the biggest sequences of the key species on this analysis (like P. lowii, C. volans and G. variegatus) are 30 kbp long... tops. This is really far from an acceptable size for an analysis of this nature (around 200 kbp), let alone the whole genome, which would be the ideal. Pictures? Do you mean the postorbital ring or the auditory region?
Hunter Cook
I mean all of them. Pictures of all those bones in situ and of those animals in vivo. I'm not gonna look up and check every tiny nugget of yours.
Comparing their ß-actin ORF nucleotide sequences could be enough for the first glimpse of a comparison, don't you think?
Josiah Roberts
Yeah, comparing that would serve as a starting point. However, we're still missing that particular nucleotide sequence in at least the several key species i mentioned earlier.
I'll also post photographs you can find on the internet of the postorbital ring area of several skulls. I'm sadly unable to find photographs of the auditory region at the moment, but i'll post them as soon as i have them.
Lucas Thomas
P. lowii skull.
Jordan Parker
Eulemur fulvus (Primates). Note the complete arch formed by the jugal, like in P. lowii.
Justin Reed
Ochotona hyperborea (Glires, Lagomorpha).
Samuel Baker
Tupaia belangeri. Note the frontal bone completes the arch started by the jugal and both bones are separated, like in O. hyperborea.
Carter Phillips
Galeopterus variegatus (Dermoptera). The frontal doesn't form an arch, like in T. belangeri and O. hyperborea, but the jugal doesn't close the postorbital ring, like P. lowii and E. fulvus.
Bentley Collins
Doesnt the "arch" stop here, I mean isn't that tiny crack the suture between frontal bone and the jugal? The angle makes difficult to see.
Liam Morgan
*forgot pic, ofc
Benjamin Long
where is rostral, where is caudal, I'm confused
Xavier Campbell
I'm pretty sure there are some genes sequenced for each. Some Hox or, if not beta-Actin, then Hgprt. This has been done many times for lots of phylo trees.
Jacob Morgan
isn't that somehow damaged? the other pic on google images looks like it has a full arch, with unseparated jugal and frontal
Alexander Reyes
It doesn't stop, the jugal makes a full arch
Caleb Gutierrez
I marked here where is the jugal-frontal junction
Jayden Reyes
Bump
Dylan Barnes
I'm not sure if that's a Tupaia skull, but in that skull, the jugal-frontal junction is in mid-arch, unlike It's actually more similar to
Jordan Torres
Sorry In rostral is towards the left. Otherwise to the right.
Robert Long
On GenBank? I don't have any scientific subscriptions and i'm not a student in any university (yet).
Joseph Parker
check ncbi gene or simply use ncbi blast, it has some specific taxnonomy options
btw you are presenting two traits, but two are not enough to justify taxonomical reasoning, but you know that already
and I dont see any arch sutures or bone boundaries within the arch on any of those pics that are very well recognizable to justify any claims
Ian Gonzalez
>The first in Ptilocercus lowii and the entire Primates order; the jugal makes a complete arch up to the superior segment of the eye socket and is itself separated from the lacrimal. but in humans, the frontal is part of the arch too, and humans are primates, or am I wrong here
Landon Gutierrez
...
Dylan Richardson
>in Glires and Scandentia minus P. lowii >Tupaiidae is the sister clade of Glires >this would mean Scandentia is polyphyletic it's not that uncommon that one member of a clade is somehow standing out with properties that deviate from the rest, or somewhat resemble another clade. but this doesn't torpedo the assignations.
Joshua Hernandez
Bumping for bats
Kayden Hill
That looks really nice user, i think i'm going to check that page for a while, i hope a molecular analysis becomes possible.
Michael Lopez
>btw you are presenting two traits, but two are not enough to justify taxonomical reasoning, but you know that already
>and I dont see any arch sutures or bone boundaries within the arch on any of those pics that are very well recognizable to justify any claims
Fair enough, two morphological traits are indeed not enough, but due the lack of plesiomorphic characters that unite and distinguish Euarchontoglires, those two traits were the most likely to represent clade synapomorphies, this because of how many times this exact characters worked in the past for sorting out undisputed monophyletic groups.
Nathaniel Turner
In H. sapiens it's really hard to tell, because of the deformed rostrum compared to the other members of Euarchontoglires, a segment of the frontal forms indeed a part of the postorbital ring, but it doesn't form an arch.
Angel Jones
>it's not that uncommon that one member of a clade is somehow standing out with properties that deviate from the rest
This is true, but i was looking at it from the side that Scandentia is a group with the relatively 'unspecialized' members of Euarchontoglires, and usually, the 'unspecialized' groups turn out to be wastebasket taxons. Insectivora is a good example of this.
Luke Evans
Bats? Nice. But i'm not gutsy enough to propose some 'Archontoglires' group. Sure, i might be new to this and i have nothing to lose, but molecular analysis decisively support Chiroptera to be members of Laurasiatheria. Internal relationships within Euarchontoglires though... it's an area where nothing is set on stone yet.
Bentley Adams
remember you can always ask here for advice on BLAST if you like