Book contents
- Cladistics
- The Systematics Association Special Volume Series
- Cladistics
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Preface
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction: Carving Nature at Its Joints, or Why Birds Are Not Dinosaurs and Men Are Not Apes
- Part I The Interrelationships of Organisms
- Part II Systematics: Exposing Myths
- Part III The Cladistic Programme
- Part IV How to Study Classification
- 8 Modern Artificial Methods and Raw Data
- 9 How to Study Classification: Consensus Techniques and General Classifications
- 10 How to Study Classification: ‘Total Evidence’ vs. ‘Consensus’, Character Congruence vs. Taxonomic Congruence, Simultaneous Analysis vs. Partitioned Data
- 11 How to Study Classification
- 12 How to Study Classification
- Part V Beyond Classification
- Afterword
- Index
- Systematics Association Special Volumes
- References
10 - How to Study Classification: ‘Total Evidence’ vs. ‘Consensus’, Character Congruence vs. Taxonomic Congruence, Simultaneous Analysis vs. Partitioned Data
from Part IV - How to Study Classification
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 July 2020
Book contents
- Cladistics
- The Systematics Association Special Volume Series
- Cladistics
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Preface
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction: Carving Nature at Its Joints, or Why Birds Are Not Dinosaurs and Men Are Not Apes
- Part I The Interrelationships of Organisms
- Part II Systematics: Exposing Myths
- Part III The Cladistic Programme
- Part IV How to Study Classification
- 8 Modern Artificial Methods and Raw Data
- 9 How to Study Classification: Consensus Techniques and General Classifications
- 10 How to Study Classification: ‘Total Evidence’ vs. ‘Consensus’, Character Congruence vs. Taxonomic Congruence, Simultaneous Analysis vs. Partitioned Data
- 11 How to Study Classification
- 12 How to Study Classification
- Part V Beyond Classification
- Afterword
- Index
- Systematics Association Special Volumes
- References
Summary
A significant debate in systematics that began in the late-1970s, developed in the mid-1980s and still with us today is the discussion on the use of what was initially called the ‘Total evidence versus Consensus’ debate. The essence of the debate can be captured with two contrasting approaches to systematics, whether to combine evidence or keep it partitioned.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- CladisticsA Guide to Biological Classification, pp. 253 - 272Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
References
References
Dayrat, B. 2005. Towards integrative taxonomy. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 85: 407–415.Google Scholar
Hennig, W. 1966. Phylogenetic Systematics. University of Illinois Press, Urbana [reprinted 1979, 1999].Google Scholar
Higgins, W. 2005. Holomorphology: the total evidence approach to phylogenetic reconstruction. In: Raynal-Roques, A., Rogeuenant, A. & Prat, D. (eds), Actes du 18e Congrès mondial et exposition d’orchidées. 18th Proceedings of the World Orchid Conference. Naturalia, Turriers, pp. 268–276.Google Scholar
Hubbard, CE. 1971. William Bertram Turrill 1890-1961. Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society 17: 688–712.Google Scholar
Olson, EC. 1991. George Gaylord Simpson: June 16, 1902-October 6, 1984. Biographical Memoirs, National Academy of Sciences (U.S.) 60: 331–353.Google Scholar
Pearse, JS. 2003. The promise of integrative biology: resurrection of the naturalist. Integrative and Comparative Biology 43: 276–277.Google Scholar
Simpson, GG. 1945. The principles of classification and a classification of mammals. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 85.Google Scholar
Turrill, WB. 1935. The investigation of plant species. Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London 147: 104–105.Google Scholar
Wake, MH. 2003. What is “Integrative Biology”? Integrative and Comparative Biology 43: 239–241.Google Scholar
Will, KW., Mishler, BD. & Wheeler, QD. 2005. The perils of DNA barcoding and the need for integrative taxonomy. Systematic Biology 54: 844–851.Google Scholar
Yeo, D., Puniamoorthy, J., Ngiam, RW. & Meier, R. 2018. Towards holomorphology in entomology: rapid and cost‐effective adult–larva matching using NGS barcodes. Systematic Entomology 43: 678–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
References
Colwell, RR. 1970. Polyphasic taxonomy of the genus Vibrio: numerical taxonomy of Vibrio cholerae, Vibrio parahaemolyticus, and related Vibrio species. Journal of Bacteriology 104: 410–433.Google Scholar
Das, S., Dash, HR., Mangwani, N., Chakraborty, J. & Kumari, S. 2014. Understanding molecular identification and polyphasic taxonomic approaches for genetic relatedness and phylogenetic relationships of microorganisms. Journal of Microbiological Methods 103: 80–100.Google Scholar
Komárek, J. 2016. A polyphasic approach for the taxonomy of cyanobacteria: principles and applications. European Journal of Phycology 51: 346–353.Google Scholar
Sneath, PHA. 1995. Thirty years of numerical taxonomy. Systematic Biology 44: 281–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vandamme, P. & Peeters, C. 2014. Time to revisit polyphasic taxonomy. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek 106: 57–65.Google Scholar
Vandamme, P., Pot, B., Gillis, M., de Vos, P., Kersters, K. & Swings, J. 1996. Polyphasic taxonomy, a consensus approach to bacterial systematics. Microbiological Reviews 60: 407–438.Google Scholar
References
Du, P. & Hahn, MW. 2019. Species tree inference under the multispecies coalescent on data with paralogs is accurate. BioRxiv 498378. https://doi.org/10.1101/498378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisen, JA. 1998. Phylogenomics: improving functional predictions for uncharacterized genes by evolutionary analysis. Genome Research 8: 163–167.Google Scholar
Gatesy, J. & Springer, MS. 2017. Phylogenomic red flags in placental radiation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 114(45): E9431–E9432.Google Scholar
Jeffroy, O., Brinkmann, H., Delsuc, F. & Philippe, H. 2006. Phylogenomics: the beginning of incongruence? Trends in Genetics 22: 225–231.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liu, L., Zhang, J., Rheindt, FE., Lei, F., Qu, Y., Wang, Y., Zhang, Y., Sullivan, C., Nie, W., Wang, J., Yang, F., Chen, J., Edwards, SV., Meng, J. & Wu, S. 2017. Reply to Gatesy and Springer: claims of homology errors and zombie lineages do not compromise the dating of placental diversification. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 114(45): E9433–E9434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Philippe, H., de Vienne, DM., Ranwez, V., Roure, B., Baurain, D. & Delsuc, F. 2017. Pitfalls in supermatrix phylogenomics. European Journal of Taxonomy 283: 1–25.Google Scholar
Sanderson, MJ., Nicolae, M. & McMahon, MM. 2017. Homology-aware phylogenomics at gigabase scales. Systematic Biology 66: 590–603.Google ScholarPubMed
Springer, MS. & Gatesy, J. 2017. On the importance of homology in the age of phylogenomics. Systematics and Biodiversity 16: 1–19.Google Scholar
Yadav, SP. 2007. The Wholeness in suffix -omics, -omes, and the word Om. Journal of Biomolecular Techniques 18(5): 277.Google Scholar
References
Adams, EN. 1972. Consensus techniques and the comparison of taxonomic trees. Systematic Zoology 21: 390–397.Google Scholar
Barrett, M., Donoghue, M. & Sober, E. 1991. Against consensus. Systematic Zoology 40: 486–493.Google Scholar
Bininda-Emonds, ORP. 2004. The evolution of supertrees. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 19: 315–322.Google Scholar
Bull, JJ., Huelsenbeck, JP., Cunningham, CW., Swofford, DL. & Waddell, PJ. 1993. Partitioning and combining data in phylogenetic analysis. Systematic Biology 42: 384–397.Google Scholar
Cain, AJ. & Harrison, GA. 1960. Phyletic weighting. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 135: 1–31.Google Scholar
Chippindale, PT. & Wiens, JJ. 1994. Weighting, partitioning, and combining characters in phylogenetic analysis. Systematic Biology 43: 278–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Queiroz, A., Donoghue, MJ. & Kim, J. 1995. Separate versus combined analysis of phylogenetic evidence. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 26: 657–681.Google Scholar
Gatesy, J. & Springer, MS. 2013. Concatenation versus coalescence versus “concatalescence”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 110: E1179.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gatesy, J. & Springer, MS. 2014. Phylogenetic analysis at deep timescales: unreliable gene trees, bypassed hidden support, and the coalescence/concatalescence conundrum. Molecular Phylogenetics & Evolution 80: 231–266.Google Scholar
Gatesy, J., Matthee, C., DeSalle, R. & Hayashi, C. 2002. Resolution of a Supertree/Supermatrix paradox. Systematic Biology 51: 652–664.Google Scholar
Gatesy, J., Meredith, RW., Janecka, JE., Simmons, MP., Murphy, WJ. & Springer, MS. 2017. Resolution of a concatenation/coalescence kerfuffle: partitioned coalescence support and a robust family-level tree for Mammalia. Cladistics 33: 295–332.Google Scholar
Gavryushkina, A., Heath, TA., Ksepka, DT., Stadler, T., Welch, D. & Drummond, AJ. 2017. Bayesian total-evidence dating reveals the recent crown radiation of penguins. Systematic Biology 66: 57–73.Google Scholar
Gould, SJ. 1983. The hardening of the modern synthesis. In: Grene, M (ed.), Dimensions of Darwinism. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 71–93.Google Scholar
Huelsenbeck, JP., Swofford, DL., Cunningham, CW., Bull, JJ. & Waddell, PJ. 1994. Is character weighting a panacea for the problem of data heterogeneity in phylogenetic analysis? Systematic Biology 43: 288–291.Google Scholar
Huelsenbeck, JP., Bull, JJ. & Cunningham, CW. 1996. Combining data in phylogenetic analysis. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 11: 152–158.Google Scholar
Kluge, AG. 1989. A concern for evidence and a phylogenetic hypothesis of relationships among Epicrates (Boidae, Serpentes). Systematic Zoology 38: 7–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kluge, AG. & Farris, JS. 1969. Quantitative phyletics and the evolution of Anurans. Systematic Zoology 18: 1–32.Google Scholar
Lecointre, G. & Deleporte, P. 2005. Total evidence requires exclusion of phylogenetically misleading data. Zoologica Scripta 34: 101–117.Google Scholar
Miyamoto, MM. 1985. Consensus cladograms and general classifications. Cladistics 1: 186–189.Google Scholar
Miyamoto, M. & Fitch, W. 1995. Testing species phylogenies and phylogenetic methods with congruence. Systematic Biology 44: 64–76.Google Scholar
Nelson, G. 1979. Cladistic analysis and synthesis: principles and definitions, with a historical note on Adanson's Familles des Plantes. Systematic Zoology 28: 1–21.Google Scholar
Nelson, GJ. 2004. Cladistics: its arrested development. In: Williams, DM. & Forey, PL. (eds), Milestones in Systematics. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 127–147.Google Scholar
Ronquist, F., Klopfstein, S., Vilhelmsen, L., Schulmeister, S., Murray, DL. & Rasnitsyn, AP. 2012. A total-evidence approach to dating with fossils, applied to the early radiation of the Hymenoptera. Systematic Biology 61: 973–999.Google Scholar
Wiens, JJ. & Chippindale, PT. 1994. Combining and weighting characters and the prior agreement approach revisited. Systematic Biology 43: 564–566.Google Scholar
Witteveen, J. 2011. [Book review] The softening of the Modern Synthesis, Julian Huxley: Evolution: The Modern Synthesis; The Definitive Edition. Massimo Pigliucci and Gerd B. Müller (eds): Evolution–The Extended Synthesis. Acta Biotheoretica 59: 333–345.Google Scholar
Zharkikh, A. & Li, W-H. 1993. Inconsistency of the maximum-parsimony method: the case of five taxa with a molecular clock. Systematic Biology 42: 113–125.Google Scholar