if they split from a common ancestor then they are in fact related.they are unrelated. they spilt from a common ancestor before both came about.
http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Fossil_...il_gallery/Class_Myriapoda_fossil_gallery.htm
i would not rely on genetics at this point. the methodologies with genetic finger printing of species has proved to be harder than everyone thought. its not as cut and dry as we once thought but maybe there will be improvments soon.that being said, you have to understand that trilobites are deemed "species" purely by their morphology as a fossil, not even alive. If we could do genetic fingerprinting on them everything would no doubt change. that is just my opinion though.
I'm going to have disagree with that statement. My lab is about to apply for a grant to do water quality testing and to find point and non point source pollution studies with enterococcus and e coli. We'll probably use either rybotyping or rep or box PCR (DNA fingerprinting) to do it. The many studies ive seen have about 90% rates of success with identifying the correct fingerprint from a specific cattle source for example. As I understand it a member called a aclockworkorange has done some molecular typing of cytochrome C oxidase on myriapods. There are so many different ways to fingerprint...something will work. It depends on how much time and money you have and if anyone's done it before.i would not rely on genetics at this point. the methodologies with genetic finger printing of species has proved to be harder than everyone thought. its not as cut and dry as we once thought but maybe there will be improvments soon.
having said that, trilobites are really well known. probably the best known of acient arthopods. due to their make up, their fossil record is outstanding and species definitions are easy to see.
people at my lab tried it with some deep sea sponges and they aren't getting the results as easy as one would expect. while DNA finger printing maybe good, it is my opinion that it should be taken with a grain of salt. according to the prints, they came up with 4 different species of sponge from one sponge sample. its good for some but no all.I'm going to have disagree with that statement. My lab is about to apply for a grant to do water quality testing and to find point and non point source pollution studies with enterococcus and e coli. We'll probably use either rybotyping or rep or box PCR (DNA fingerprinting) to do it. The many studies ive seen have about 90% rates of success with identifying the correct fingerprint from a specific cattle source for example. As I understand it a member called a aclockworkorange has done some molecular typing of cytochrome C oxidase on myriapods. There are so many different ways to fingerprint...something will work. It depends on how much time and money you have and if anyone's done it before.
Plus, and this is my observation, species are always rearranged when more relyable molecular techniques are employed. If you've got several creatures inhabiting the same niche (ex: triliobytes) you are evolutionarily madated to have some convergent evolution. I dont put much stock in morphology past maybe, arbitrarily, say the family or genus level. definately not species for an arthropod, of course depending on the group being studied.
Ok, ok. To be honest I figured to make a statement like that you had to work in some kind of lab. I think our argument applies differently for different groups. My fingerprinting works great for my purposes and yours for your purposes. From what I can tell trying to use morphology in centipedes is pretty scetchy at this point. I'd rather see some genetic data. I would never suggest anyone doing genetic fingerprinting is bad at it. there's so much variability and things that can go wrong. I'm always excited when thing go right! Can I ask what method you're using to do your fingerprinting?people at my lab tried it with some deep sea sponges and they aren't getting the results as easy as one would expect. while DNA finger printing maybe good, it is my opinion that it should be taken with a grain of salt. according to the prints, they came up with 4 different species of sponge from one sponge sample. its good for some but no all.
now before you think my lab isn't good at this stuff.......trust me, we are! all im saying is it might not be as good as everyone thinks on a broad scale. sure it may work for some groups, but not all.
as for morphologies being key for determining different species, i work day to day doing microinvert taxonomy. so far, the morpholgies at species level are great! its at the family level where things get screwy. arthopods are the worse next to mollusk! there are superfamiles and suborders, suborders and supergenus....they don't mean anything! from a taxonomists perspective, we are hoping the DNA mapping will solve the order, and family mess not really the speices thing. on a morphological level, species to species are fine. the characters that split most species are so great that they warrant an unmistakable difference in species.
im not doing the fingerprinting directly. there is an entire seperate part of my lab that focuses on that. i go to every lecture they give as this up and coming science is interesting and important to me. the possibilities of finally fixing the taxonomic systems is exciting and i hope they figure out all the bugs.Ok, ok. To be honest I figured to make a statement like that you had to work in some kind of lab. I think our argument applies differently for different groups. My fingerprinting works great for my purposes and yours for your purposes. From what I can tell trying to use morphology in centipedes is pretty scetchy at this point. I'd rather see some genetic data. I would never suggest anyone doing genetic fingerprinting is bad at it. there's so much variability and things that can go wrong. I'm always excited when thing go right! Can I ask what method you're using to do your fingerprinting?
i want some eggs lol[YOUTUBE]VfcEGK-NfhY[/YOUTUBE]
[YOUTUBE]4quPALV24Ww[/YOUTUBE]
You know, I think it'll just take time. The only reason I can think of to get 4 different fingerprints for the same spong is either contamination of the sample or...actually that's pretty much it. That's very interesting. I wonder, how many times have they repeated that experiment and gotten the same duplicitous result? Maybe it has something to do with the epigenetics of the sponge. I mean, they do have multipotent cells which can de differentiate and become other types of cells. Maybe some places wear a primer would usually attach are silenced/inexcessible?im not doing the fingerprinting directly. there is an entire seperate part of my lab that focuses on that. i go to every lecture they give as this up and coming science is interesting and important to me. the possibilities of finally fixing the taxonomic systems is exciting and i hope they figure out all the bugs.
yeah they first thougt it was contamination too. so they used a different method of isolating parts of the sponges first and then running them again. they worked on it all summer so i pretty sure they did a bunch or runs on it. not sure the acutal number though.You know, I think it'll just take time. The only reason I can think of to get 4 different fingerprints for the same spong is either contamination of the sample or...actually that's pretty much it. That's very interesting. I wonder, how many times have they repeated that experiment and gotten the same duplicitous result? Maybe it has something to do with the epigenetics of the sponge. I mean, they do have multipotent cells which can de differentiate and become other types of cells. Maybe some places wear a primer would usually attach are silenced/inexcessible?
Anyway, i'd like to here eventually what your lab finds