Miyamoto and Cracraft (1991)
, one wonders why Avise chose to dedicate so much space to the same issues discussed at length in these other texts. According to the author this book is designed to provide an overview of how molecular markers can be
The first section also is where I had the most difficulty appreciating many of the points raised by Avise used to study the natural history and evolution of organisms. The intended audience consists of advanced regarding systematics and phylogeny reconstruction.
Although Avise indicates that molecular markers may undergraduates, graduate students, and scientists interested in a general introduction to how one can apply provide a link between the major areas of evolutionary research, those related to populations and higher taxa, molecular markers to problems in their respective disciplines. The book is subdivided into two major sections he fails to provide such an integration. I believe this failure is in part a result of Avise's misunderstanding titled Background and Applications. The first section is subdivided into four chapters that address several top-of systematics, past and present. Let me provide a few examples. First, in Avise's discussion as to why molecu-ics including: (1) the justification for the use of molecular markers in studies of natural history and evolution; lar genetic markers should be employed, he suggests that they can distinguish homology from analogy, a (2) the history of the use of molecular markers in evolutionary studies and how such markers have been used statement first made by Gould (1985) regarding the DNA-DNA hybridization data for birds. Are molecular to test hypotheses concerning the role of selection at the level of the gene; (3) molecular markers in phylogeny data less subject to homoplasy? Although there are examples to the contrary, molecules may be less subject reconstruction; (4) the types of molecular markers available and the methods used to obtain molecular to convergence and parallelism (if one assumes a molecular clock) but reversals are a real problem. Thus, one data as well as the underlying principles associated with those data; and (5) the analysis of molecular data must evaluate the evolution of molecular characters the same way one evaluates morphological characters, in terms of examining the overall processes of molecular evolution that might influence the ability to obtain that is, on a phylogenetic tree. Second, in several places Avise alludes to the use of a ''molecular yard stick,'' a pattern reflecting the evolutionary and natural histories of the taxa under study. The second section con-which will allow for the derivation of a taxonomy using overall magnitude of divergence. Although this might tains five chapters that span an ever-increasing level of evolutionary divergence, beginning with issues of in-simplify taxonomy, in that no specialists would be necessary, this overall concept is flawed from the begin-dividuality and parentage and continuing through species phylogenies and macroevolution. The final chapter ning simply because taxonomists define the groups, and categories of equal rank that represent different in this section pertains to issues of conservation and how genetic approaches can be used in conservation bi-groups of taxa may not be similar in terms of rates of evolution, time since divergence, etc. This approach is ology. Throughout this second section, Avise provides a wealth of well-illustrated case studies that are used not phylogenetic, and instead of a ''universal tapestry linking all life forms,'' one would get a rag quilt. to describe how long-standing hypotheses in behavior, ecology, population biology, phylogeny, etc. can be ad-Finally, Avise confuses issues pertaining to the cladistics/phenetics debate, arguments for a classifica-dressed using various molecular approaches. As is Avise's style, this section is well written and easy to tion based on a phylogeny, and phylogeny reconstruction. Throughout the section on systematic philosophy follow.
By far the most exciting part of this book is the sec-and the phenetic/cladistic debate, Avise downplays the real issues related to why a phenetic approach (or nu-ond section, especially the chapters dealing with species, populations, and individuals. Avise is a population merical taxonomic approach), especially one using tree construction methods that assume rate homogeneity geneticist, and in these sections he brings his training to bear on questions of mating systems, kinship, popu-(e.g., UPGMA), provides an inferior method for either phylogeny reconstruction or the derivation of a classi-lation structure, geographic variation, gene flow, and speciation. The first section is less exciting. For in-fication. Cladists have argued, and rightly so, that relationships in a phylogeny should be based on shared de-stance, the chapters on molecular tools and interpre-441