Curse you, phylogenetics!
isn't there anything that Wikipedia does not know? Phylogenetics, is, of course
the worst thing to put on a biology quiz for freshman, Mrs. Smigala
Keep up the good work, Mrs. Smigala! All joking aside, phylogenetics is a hard topic to pick up. Students tend to get swamped pretty quickly with jargon (synapomorphy? homoplasy? polychotomy? apomorphy? monophyly? paraphyly?). This is a shame, because as Robert O'Hara points out in his excellent paper:
...just as beginning students in geography need to be taught how to read maps, so beginning students in biology should be taught how to read trees and to understand what trees communicate.
That is - you cannot understand modern evolutionary biology if you do not know how to read a tree. So, how do we teach phylogeny, and tree-thinking to students properly?
April 24th, 2008 - 22:42
One thing I suggested in Understanding evolutionary trees is that it is best to work on correcting misconceptions rather than having a focus on the methods of phylogenetic analyses.
April 25th, 2008 - 11:08
Thanks for the comment! I mentioned that paper when it came out, and thoroughly enjoyed it.
It seems to me that phylogenetics is often taught in two ways – either “learn all this jargon”, or “learn what clade came before Carnivora”. Both of which are dull and kind of useless. So, people learn that trees describe evolution, and have lots of weird latinate words attached to them.
What I try to do is to show that trees are boring. What is interesting is how we can use them to test hypotheses about evolution.
My favorite example is the cute April Fools paper by Shykoff and Widmer which attempts to solve the vexed question of whether the chicken came before the egg:
I think you have to show why we care about trees first, before anything else.
–Simon