Pheromone and Morphology-Based Phylogenies in New Zealand Tortricid Moths

Abstract

Systematics try to construct phylogenies—that is, routes of relationship and descent. We have, up until recently, based our phylogenetic reconstructions on morphology, because that is the character field for which we have the greatest amount of comparative information covering all the putative taxa. Where new character fields have become available, we have often regarded these as a form of independent check. There are two dangers inherent in this concept of independence: (a) the inclination to see only what supports other morphology-based conclusions and (b) the (probable) illusion of character independence (Kluge and Wolf 1993). The first danger is often compounded by a lack of appreciation of the confidence limits that are placed on information provided by a new character field, such as the pheromone systems and processes explored at this symposium. The second is influenced by our knowledge—or rather, lack of knowledge—of the genetic (transcription) control affecting the character states we choose to employ. For both dangers, as Kluge and Wolf (1993, p. 196) point out, “the limits of phytogenetic systematics will be clarified considerably when cladists understand how their knowledge claims are made.” It is better (i.e., logically secure), they argue, to accommodate what they call the whole evidence.