Is Wing Recurrence really impossible?: a reply to Trueman et al .

Abstract

By using multiple molecular markers and employing several methods of tree reconstruction and character optimization, we demonstrated that the ancestral phasmid is reconstructed unambiguously as wingless, with wings being reacquired later in phasmid evolution (Whiting et al., 2003). We presented this as a compelling example of recurrence in which a complex character, once lost to evolution, is regained subsequently in a descendant lineage (West-Eberhard, 2003). Our hypothesis is refutable via additional phylo-genetic analyses including a larger selection of taxa, add-itional molecular markers, morphological data, or by examining patterns of development of wing expression in phasmids. We are currently performing research in each of these areas to add greater precision to this hypothesis. Trueman et al. (2004) have not presented a formal test of our hypothesis, nor contributed additional data to refute our findings. Wing recurrence is a hypothesis of character trans-formation, requiring a phylogenetic topology for interpret-ation. The 'traditional view' of phasmid wing evolution that these authors embrace was conjured in phylogenetic ignor-ance, since we presented the first formal analysis of phasmid phylogeny. Clearly the current data support a basal place-ment of apterous taxa, and multiple researchers who have reanalysed our data, including Trueman et al., have been unable to find a topology which rejects this hypothesis, regardless of analytical methodology. Thus, Trueman et al. quibble over methods of character optimization by launching into confused, non-phylogenetic, and mutually contradictory arguments to unravel our hypothesis 'before this extraordin-ary evolutionary scenario reaches the entomology textbooks'.