this same issue. We should be interested to see what kind of results his method would give on more complex data (Lakovaara et al., 1972b). In principle the method of Dr. Farris is correct and his phylogenetic tree is the best fitting one for our distance matrix. Another question is how well his biochemical tree agrees with morphological and chromosome data. As Dr. Farris notes, his phylogenetic tree differs from ours primarily in resolving the old world species into two distinct groups, rather than chaining them together in a linear series. In his tree D. bijasciata is on the same main branch with the American species. Its deviation from the Eurasian branch is well within the limits of the standard error of D (d. our Table 2, Lakovaara et al., 1972a) . As for the American species, D. persimilis, D. pseudoobscura, D. miranda and D. lowei, the two proposed phylogenetic trees are identical and agree well with chromosome structure and morphological data. Morphology and the chromosome structure of the Old World species, however, fit poorly the phylogenetic tree of Dr. Farris. D. subobscura and D. alpina have acrocentric chromosomes, whereas the long metacentric chromosomes of the rest of the Old World species represent an apparently monophyletic condition, which is probably derived from D. subobscura-like ancestors. Morphologically these species (D. bifasciata, D. tristis, D. ambigua and D. subsilvestris) also form a group clearly different from D. alpina and D. subobscura. These two species are morphologically quite different from each other. The phylogenetic tree proposed by us is more in accord with the available morphological and chromosomal evidence. Considering the standard errors given in our Table 2 the conclusions of Dr. Farris appear too rigorous, for many more phylogenetic trees could be drawn within these errors. While it is obvious that the rates of evolution for the species of the D. obscure group have been different, the phylogenetic tree proposed by Dr. Farris hardly gives a correct picture of these rates for our data. Comparing phylogenetic trees constructed by different methods will provide valuable insight on the processes of evolution and speciation.
[1]
M. Kimura,et al.
The average number of generations until extinction of an individual mutant gene in a finite population.
,
1969,
Genetics.
[2]
M. Kimura,et al.
SOME METHODS FOR TREATING CONTINUOUS STOCHASTIC PROCESSES IN POPULATION GENETICS
,
1971
.
[3]
M. Kimura,et al.
An introduction to population genetics theory
,
1971
.
[4]
M. Kimura,et al.
On the probability of fixation of mutant genes in a population.
,
1962,
Genetics.
[5]
S. Wright,et al.
Evolution in Mendelian Populations.
,
1931,
Genetics.
[6]
W J Ewens,et al.
Conditional diffusion processes in population genetics.
,
1973,
Theoretical population biology.
[7]
P. Narain.
A note on the diffusion approximation for the variance of the number of generations until fixation of a neutral mutant gene.
,
1970,
Genetical research.
[8]
Rory A. Fisher,et al.
XVII—The distribution of gene ratios for rare mutations
,
1931
.
[9]
Mandy J. Haldane,et al.
A Mathematical Theory of Natural and Artificial Selection, Part V: Selection and Mutation
,
1927,
Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society.
[10]
M. Kimura,et al.
The length of time required for a selectively neutral mutant to reach fixation through random frequency drift in a finite population.
,
1970,
Genetical research.
[11]
T. Maruyama.
The average number and the variance of generations at particular gene frequency in the course of fixation of a mutant gene in a finite population.
,
1972,
Genetical research.
[12]
T. Ohta,et al.
The Average Number of Generations until Fixation of a Mutant Gene in a Finite Population.
,
1969,
Genetics.
[13]
T. Ohta,et al.
The age of a neutral mutant persisting in a finite population.
,
1973,
Genetics.
[14]
Motoo Kimura,et al.
Some Problems of Stochastic Processes in Genetics
,
1957
.