A recent phylogenomic analysis of arthropod relationships (Regier et al., 2010) produced several surprising clades within Tetraconata (Pancrustacea). The first discussion of these heterodox findings in the carcinological literature was published in the Journal of Crustacean Biology by Ferrari (2010). Ferrari criticized the findings of Regier et al. from three perspectives: 1) that morphological and developmental evidence was not considered by Regier et al., thus casting doubt on their results; 2) that Regier et al.'s tree implies incredible transformations in crustacean body plans; and 3) that Regier et al.'s results could be a methodological artifact. I show that none of these criticisms can withstand scrutiny. One should take care in structuring a phylogenetic critique. Not doing so may well be counterproductive if the aim is to increase respect for non-molecular evidence in phylogenetics.
You have requested a machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Neither BioOne nor the owners and publishers of the content make, and they explicitly disclaim, any express or implied representations or warranties of any kind, including, without limitation, representations and warranties as to the functionality of the translation feature or the accuracy or completeness of the translations.
Translations are not retained in our system. Your use of this feature and the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in the Terms and Conditions of Use of the BioOne website.
Vol. 31 • No. 2