Is this group/project dead?

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: 

public://picture-82.jpg
Submitted by dsamorim on

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

--

--- Mensagem original -----

De: "Jostein Kjaerandsen" <jostein.kjarandsen@uit.no>
Para: mycetophylo@sciaroidea.info
Enviadas: Terça-feira, 3 de Janeiro de 2017 11:01:12
Assunto: Is this group/project dead?

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?

http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/1382bdb183ac78ead43ec4d3ad60682d.jpg?d=http%3A//sciaroidea.info/sites/all/modules/contrib/gravatar/avatar.png&s=100&r=G
Submitted by vblago on

Since nothing has happened in two years, I presume nothing is going to
happen. It's a pity, but often the case. Anybody has any idea how to revive
it considering different ambitions and agendas we have?

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.

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:

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
----- Mensagem original -----

> De: "Jostein Kjaerandsen"
> Para: mycetophylo@sciaroidea.info
> Enviadas: Terça-feira, 3 de Janeiro de 2017 11:01:12
> Assunto: Is this group/project dead?

> 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?

public://picture-82.jpg
Submitted by dsamorim on

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

--

--- Mensagem original -----

De: "vblago" <vblago@gmail.com>
Para: mycetophylo@sciaroidea.info
Enviadas: Domingo, 8 de Janeiro de 2017 17:00:07
Assunto: Re: Is this group/project dead?

Since nothing has happened in two years, I presume nothing is going
to
happen. It's a pity, but often the case. Anybody has any idea how to
revive
it considering different ambitions and agendas we have?

>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.

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 wrote:

> 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
> ----- Mensagem original -----
>
> > De: "Jostein Kjaerandsen"
> > Para: mycetophylo@sciaroidea.info
> > Enviadas: Terça-feira, 3 de Janeiro de 2017 11:01:12
> > Assunto: Is this group/project dead?
>
> > 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?
>
>

Add new comment

You must have Javascript enabled to use this form.
Scratchpads developed and conceived by (alphabetical): Ed Baker, Katherine Bouton Alice Heaton Dimitris Koureas, Laurence Livermore, Dave Roberts, Simon Rycroft, Ben Scott, Vince Smith