To directly address the limitations of morphology we will: 1) Quantify the extent and distribution of the problem across the tree of life and across morphological modules 2) develop methodological toolkits for reliable phylogenetic inference using morphology, with independent molecular and stratigraphic data acting as benchmarks 3) apply those methods to important evolutionary events that rely on interpretations of morphology but have thus far proved intractable or equivocal, for example, human origins. As such, our understanding of a range of evolutionary events is undermined, and our ability to reconstruct evolutionary history is limited. Furthermore, we have no idea about the distribution or influence of these phenomena. These problematic phenomena are acknowledged to exist, but they have been largely ignored morphological data are routinely taken at 'face value' and are treated as equivalent by both molecular and palaeontological studies. Developmental and functional linkage can result in suites or modules of non-independent morphological characters and thus misleading patterns with respect to phylogeny reconstruction. Although morphology is acknowledged to be essential for phylogeny, it is also widely recognized as intrinsically problematic. It is also the only way to include extinct taxa, and therefore provide a deep time perspective fossils break up large gaps between the depauperate modern fauna, unlock sequences of evolutionary change (so called 'missing links') and provide a timescale for estimating evolutionary rates, including calibration of molecular clocks. It enables us to make the link between organisms and their environment and thus demonstrate the mechanisms of evolutionary change. As such, they address major questions, such as, how and when did our modern biota come into being, and what is the shape and distribution of biodiversity and extinction? Advances in the acquisition and analysis of genetic sequence data have led to an increasing emphasis and reliance on molecular phylogenies, yet phenotypic evidence (morphology) remains vital. It has received a number of facelifts and limited-edition versions, but the recipe has not changed – powerful V6 turbo engine, four-wheel drive, and dual-clutch transmission.Phylogenetic trees underpin reconstructions of evolutionary history and tests of evolutionary hypotheses. The present-day GT-R has been in production since the end of 2007 and was launched in Europe in 2009. It manages to win 29 out of 29 races in JTCC (Japanese Touring Car Championship). In 1989, Nissan launched the legendary R32 Skyline GT-R, which earns the name Godzilla, due to its impressive racing record. Only 197 units were produced, as the Oil Crisis hit the world and changed forever how cars were built. It had an equally powerful engine as the 911 of the day, so it managed to rack up 33 victories in only two years worth of racing.ġ973 saw the birth of the last GT-R for the next 16 years. The first high-performance version saw the light of day in 1969. As you can tell from the name, it was also marketed as a premium vehicle. In 1963, the second generation Skyline was launched, called 1500 Deluxe. Despite the name, the Sport only had a 91 hp engine. It was the Skyline Sport, designed by Giovanni Michelotti – only a few hundred were ever produced. Performance was not exactly a primary concern, as this first Skyline only had an engine that produced 60 hp.ġ962 saw the birth of the first sports orientated model. At first, it was produced by Prince Automobile, before this brand merged with Nissan in 1966. The very first model to use the name Skyline was launched in 1957 as a compact premium vehicle. The Nissan Skyline evolved from a compact, premium, vehicle, to a supersport monster that earned the nickname Godzilla. This is the story of how Nissan created one of the most iconic model lines
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |