Placental mammal relationships clarified

A just-published paper in PLoS Biology has thrown some light on the relationship between placental mammals. The authors used retroposed elements, and by scanning more than 160,000 chromosomal loci and selecting from only phylogenetically informative retroposons, they recovered 28 clear, independent monophyly markers that they feel conclusively verify the earliest divergences in placental mammalian evolution.

Below the fold, I provide a copy of their derived phylogeny, but a few things are worth noting:

The paper is Kriegs JO, Churakov G, Kiefmann M, Jordan U, Brosius J, et al. (2006) Retroposed Elements as Archives for the Evolutionary History of Placental Mammals. PLoS Biol 4(4): e91 and there is a commentary here. Of course, it is important to remember that any nested pattern we see is due to the designer's wisdom in creating the approximately 100 original "kinds" (which are, we will remember, at the family level).

i-b953ef063537af1a7b9bbf20a88b4b96-10.1371_journal.pbio.0040091.g002-M.jpg

Tags

More like this

Thanks for the heads up, hadn't seen this. Several observations from looking at the pictures (kinda like playboy). Hedgehogs are all by their lonesome. I never really trusted hedgehogs, beady little eyes, tendency to role up into balls. In contrast, the pangolin groups with the carnivores which I find odd.

By Bruce Thompson (not verified) on 10 Apr 2006 #permalink

Did the golden mole retain the cloaca from our marsupial ancestor? Or did it evolve later? In what way is it the same as the marsupial cloaca? In what way is it different? Which genes govern cloaca in golden moles? Are they different than the genes that govern cloacal development in marsupials.