Hello, i want to ask /sci/ their opinion about Euarchontoglires

Bump for rabbits

>>9131195
I highly doubt anyone here knows enough to formulate an argument or counter-argument on this...

>>9131195
>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?

>>9131195
why dont you fucking show us the pictures of those structures you are talking about

>>9134161
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.
>>9134165
Pictures? Do you mean the postorbital ring or the auditory region?

>>9134231
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?

>>9134458
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.

File: Ptilocercus lowii.png (176KB, 315x262px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 315x262px

>>9134708
P. lowii skull.

File: Eulemur fulvus.png (132KB, 257x206px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 257x206px

>>9134713
Eulemur fulvus (Primates). Note the complete arch formed by the jugal, like in P. lowii.

File: Ochotona hyperborea.png (125KB, 231x204px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 231x204px

>>9134718
Ochotona hyperborea (Glires, Lagomorpha).

File: Tupaia belangeri.png (67KB, 181x146px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 181x146px

>>9134720
Tupaia belangeri. Note the frontal bone completes the arch started by the jugal and both bones are separated, like in O. hyperborea.

File: Galeopterus variegatus.png (49KB, 181x146px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 181x146px

>>9134726
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.

>>9134718
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.

File: isntthis.png (119KB, 257x206px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 257x206px

>>9134907
*forgot pic, ofc

>>9134732
where is rostral, where is caudal, I'm confused

>>9134708
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.

File: Tupaia_belangeri_Skull_Planckendael_06112015_3.jpg (628KB, 1797x1204px) Image search: [Google]

628KB, 1797x1204px

>>9134726
isn't that somehow damaged?
the other pic on google images looks like it has a full arch, with unseparated jugal and frontal

>>9134908
It doesn't stop, the jugal makes a full arch

File: Jugal-frontal.png (130KB, 257x206px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 257x206px

>>9136913
I marked here where is the jugal-frontal junction

>>9134949
I'm not sure if that's a Tupaia skull, but in that skull, the jugal-frontal junction is in mid-arch, unlike >>9134908
It's actually more similar to >>9134726

>>9134914
Sorry
In >>9134713 >>9134718 >>9134726 rostral is towards the left. Otherwise to the right.

>>9134923
On GenBank? I don't have any scientific subscriptions and i'm not a student in any university (yet).

>>9136935
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

>>9131195
>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

File: Bildschirmfoto 2017-08-30 um 09.16.23.png (130KB, 652x582px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 652x582px

>>9138102
>>9136935

>>9131195
>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.

Bumping for bats

>>9138110
That looks really nice anon, i think i'm going to check that page for a while, i hope a molecular analysis becomes possible.

>>9138102
>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.

File: Homo sapiens.png (146KB, 234x252px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 234x252px

>>9138107
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.

>>9139183
>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.

>>9140064
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.

>>9141212
remember you can always ask here for advice on BLAST if you like