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
- 3 Relationship Diagrams
- 4 Essentialism and Typology
- 5 Monothetic and Polythetic Taxa
- 6 Non-taxa or the Absence of –Phyly: Paraphyly and Aphyly
- Part III The Cladistic Programme
- Part IV How to Study Classification
- Part V Beyond Classification
- Afterword
- Index
- Systematics Association Special Volumes
- References
6 - Non-taxa or the Absence of –Phyly: Paraphyly and Aphyly
from Part II - Systematics: Exposing Myths
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
- 3 Relationship Diagrams
- 4 Essentialism and Typology
- 5 Monothetic and Polythetic Taxa
- 6 Non-taxa or the Absence of –Phyly: Paraphyly and Aphyly
- Part III The Cladistic Programme
- Part IV How to Study Classification
- Part V Beyond Classification
- Afterword
- Index
- Systematics Association Special Volumes
- References
Summary
We will treat the terms monophyly and monophyletic group in more detail in Chapter 7. Briefly, it refers to a taxon characterised by at least one synapomorphy (also further discussed in Chapter 7). Many recent definitions of monophyly have been based on ancestry. This book is focused on classification, so here monophyly is considered to be an empirical concept, matching evidence to conclusions. Monophyletic groups are taxa; but not all taxa are monophyletic – they are, for the most part, assumed to be so.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- CladisticsA Guide to Biological Classification, pp. 124 - 148Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
References
Ackery, PR. & Vane-Wright, RI. 1984. Milkweed Butterflies: Their Cladistics and Biology. Cornell Univ. Press, Ithaca, New York.Google Scholar
Archibald, JD. 1994. Metataxon concepts and assessing possible ancestry using phylogenetic systematics. Systematic Biology 43: 27–40.Google Scholar
Bernardi, N. 1981. Parentesco filogenético, grupo monofilético e conceitos correlatos: novas definições. Revista Brasileira de Entomologia 25: 323–326.Google Scholar
Brummitt, RK. 1996. In defence of paraphyletic taxa. In: van der Maesen, LJG. (ed.), The Biodiversity of African Plants (Proceedings of the 14th Plenary Meeting of the Association for the Taxonomic Study of the Flora of Tropical Africa [AETFAT] Congress, Wageningen). Kluwer Academic Press, Dordrecht, pp. 371–384.Google Scholar
Brummitt, RK. 1997a. Taxonomy versus cladonomy, a fundamental controversy in biological systematics. Taxon 46: 723–734 [an enhanced version was distributed to some fellow botanists as a reprint “with added summary”].Google Scholar
Brummitt, RK. 1997b. Proposing the motion ‘that this house believes that Linnean classification without paraphyletic taxa is nonsensical’: the theoretical case. Royal Botanic Garden, Kew.1Google Scholar
Brummitt, RK. 2014. Taxonomy versus cladonomy in the Dicot families. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 100:89–99.Google Scholar
Donoghue, MJ. 1985. A critique of the biological species concept and recommendations for a phylogenetic alternative. The Bryologist 88: 172–181.Google Scholar
Ebach, MC. & Williams, DM. 2010. Aphyly: A systematic designation for a taxonomic problem. Evolutionary Biology 37:123–127.Google Scholar
Felsenstein, J., 2001. The troubled growth of statistical phylogenetics. Systematic Zoology 50: 465–467.Google ScholarPubMed
Flegr, J. 2013. Why Drosophila is not Drosophila any more, why it will be worse and what can be done about it? Zootaxa 3741 (2): 295–300.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Franz, NM. 2005. On the lack of good scientific reasons for the growing phylogeny/classification gap. Cladistics 21: 495–500.Google Scholar
Fraser, FC. 1954. The origin and descent of the order Odonata based on the evidence of persistent archaic characters. Proceedings of the Royal Entomological Society London, Series B, 23: 89–94.Google Scholar
Gauthier, J., Estes, R. & de Queiroz, K. 1988. A phylogenetic analysis of Lepidosauromorpha. In: Estes, R. and Pregill, G. (eds.), Phylogenetic Relationships of the Lizard Families. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California, pp. 15–98.Google Scholar
George, AS. 2014. The case against the transfer of Dryandra to Banksia (Proteaceae) 1. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Gardens 100: 32–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hennig, W. 1936. Beziehungen zwischen geographischer Verbreitung und systematischer Gliederung bei einigen Dipterenfamilien ein Beitrag zum Problem der Gliederung systematischer Kategorien höherer Ordnung. Zoologischer Anzeiger 116: 161–175.Google Scholar
Hennig, W. 1953. Kritische Bemerkungen zum phylogenetischen System der Insekten. Beiträge zur Entomologie 3 (Sonderh.): 1–85.Google Scholar
Hennig, W. 1962. Veränderungen am phylogenetischen System der Insekten seit 1953. Deutsche Akad. Landwirtschaftswiss. Berlin: Tagungsber. 45: 29–42.Google Scholar
Hillis, DM. 2007. Constraints in naming parts of the Tree of Life. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 42: 331–338.Google Scholar
Marques, AC. & Migotto, AE. 2001. Cladistic analysis and new classification of the family Turulariidae (Hydrozoa, Anthomedusae). Papéis Avulsos de Zoologia 41: 465–488.Google Scholar
Mast, AR. & Thiele, KR. 2007. The transfer of Dryandra R.Br. to Banksia L.f. (Proteaceae). Australian Systematic Botany 20, 63–71.Google Scholar
Mast, AR., Jones, EH. & Havery, SP. 2005. An assessment of old and new DNA sequence evidence for the paraphyly of Banksia with respect to Dryandra (Protaeceae). Australian Systematic Botany 18: 75–88.Google Scholar
Mayr, E., 1974. Cladistic analysis or cladistic classification? Zeitschrift für zoologische Systematik und Evolutionsforschung 12:94–128.Google Scholar
Mayr, G. 2002. Osteological evidence for paraphyly of the avian order Caprimulgiformes (nightjars and allies). Journal für Ornithologie 143: 82–97.Google Scholar
Mayr, E. & Bock, WJ. 2002. Classifications and other ordering systems. Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Research 40: 169–194.Google Scholar
Meier, R. 2005. Role of dipterology in phylogenetic systematics: the insight of Willi Hennig. In: Wiegmann, BM. & Yeates, DK. (eds), The Evolutionary Biology of Flies. Columbia University Press, New York, pp. 45–62.Google Scholar
Nelson, GJ. 1971. Paraphyly and polyphyly: Redefinitions. Systematic Zoology 20: 471–472.Google Scholar
Nelson, GJ. 1972. Phylogenetic relationship and classification. Systematic Zoology 21:227–231.Google Scholar
Nelson, GJ. & Platnick, NI. 1980. Multiple branching in cladograms: Two interpretations. Systematic Zoology 29:86–91.Google Scholar
Nelson, GJ., Murphy, DJ. & Ladiges, PY. 2003. Brummitt on paraphyly: A response. Taxon 52: 295–298.Google Scholar
O’Hara, RJ. 1991. Representations of the natural system in the nineteenth century. Biology and Philosophy 6: 255–274.Google Scholar
Parenti, L. 1981. A phylogenetic and biogeographic analysis of cyprinodontiform fishes (Teleostei, Atherinomorpha). Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 168 (4): 335–557.Google Scholar
Patterson, C. 1982. Morphological characters and homology. In: Joysey, KA. & Friday, AE. (eds), Problems of Phylogenetic Reconstruction. Academic Press, London, pp. 21–74.Google Scholar
Platnick, NI. 1977a. Monotypy and the origin of higher taxa: A reply to E. O. Wiley. Systematic Zoology 26: 355–357.Google Scholar
Platnick, NI. 1977b. Paraphyletic and polyphyletic groups. Systematic Zoology 26: 195–200.Google Scholar
Pyle, RL. & Michel, E. 2008. Zoobank: Developing a nomenclatural tool for unifying 250 years of biological information. Zootaxa 1950: 39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rieppel, O. 2005. Proper names in twin worlds: Monophyly, paraphyly, and the world around us. Organisms Diversity & Evolution 5: 89–100.Google Scholar
Rieseberg, LH. & Brouillet, L. 1994. Are many plant species paraphyletic? Taxon 43: 21–32.Google Scholar
Rosa, D. 1918. Ologenesi. R. Bemporad, Firenze. [Reprint: Vergata, A. La (ed.). 2001. Daniele Rosa, Ologenesi. Biblioteca della Scienze Italiana, no. 32. Giunti, Firenze.]Google Scholar
Schmitt, M. 2001. Willi Hennig (1913–1976). In: Jahn, I. & Schmitt, M. (eds), Darwin & Co. Eine Geschichte der Biologie in Portraits. C.H. Beck, Munich, pp. 317–343.Google Scholar
Schmitt, M. 2013. From Taxonomy to Phylogenetics–Life and Work of Willi Hennig. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Seifert, B., Buschinger, A., Aldawood, A., Antonova, V., Bharti, H., Borowiec, L., Dekoninck, W., Dubovikoff, D., Espadaler, X., Flegr, J., Georgiadis, C., Heinze, J., Neumeyer, R., Ødegaard, F., Oettler, J., Radchenko, A., Schultz, R., Sharaf, M., Trager, J., Vesnić, A., Wiezik, M. & Zettel, H. 2016. Banning paraphylies and executing Linnaean taxonomy is discordant and reduces the evolutionary and semantic information content of biological nomenclature. Insectes Sociaux 63: 237–242.Google Scholar
Soares-Cavalcanti, NM., Wanderley-Nogueira, AC., Belarmino, LC., dos Santos Barros, P. & Benko-Iseppon, AM. 2009. Comparative in silico evaluation of MYB transcription factors in eucalyptus, sugarcane and rice transcriptomes. In: Computational Intelligence Methods for Bioinformatics and Biostatistics. Springer: Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 44–55.Google Scholar
Stepanek, JG. & Kociolek, PJ. 2019. Molecular phylogeny of the diatom genera Amphora and Halamphora (Bacillariophyta) with a focus on morphological and ecological evolution. Journal of Phycology, doi:10.1111/jpy.12836Google Scholar
Thiele, KR., Weston, PH. & Mast, AR. 2015. Paraphyly, modern systematics and the transfer of Dryandra into Banksia (Proteaceae): a response to George. Australian Systematic Botany 28, 194–202.Google Scholar
Vanderlaan, TA., Ebach, MC., Williams, DM. & Wilkins, JS. 2013. Defining and redefining monophyly: Haeckel, Hennig, Ashlock, Nelson and the proliferation of definitions. Australian Systematic Botany. 26: 347–355.Google Scholar
Wanderley-Nogueira, AC., da Mota Soares-Cavalcanti, N., Belarmino, LC., Barbosa-Silva, A., Kido, EA., Do Monte, SJH., Pandolfi, V., Calsa-Junior, T. & Benko-Iseppon, AM. 2010. In silico screening for pathogenesis related-2 gene candidates in Vigna unguiculata transcriptome. In: Computational Intelligence Methods for Bioinformatics and Biostatistics. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 70–81.Google Scholar
Wiley, EO. 1977. Are monotypic genera paraphyletic? - A response to Norman Platnick. Systematic Zoology 26: 352–355.Google Scholar
Wilkins, JS. & Ebach, MC. 2013. The Nature of Classification: Relationships and Kinds in the Natural Sciences. Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Williams, DM. & Ebach, MC. 2017. Aphyly: identifying the flotsam and jetsam of systematics. Cladistics 34:459–466.Google Scholar
Witkowski, J., Sims, PA., Strelnikova, NI. & Williams, DM. 2015. Entogoniopsis gen. nov. and Trilamina gen. nov.(Bacillariophyta): a survey of multipolar pseudocellate diatoms with internal costae, including comments on the genus Sheshukovia Gleser. Phytotaxa 209: 1–89.Google Scholar