Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T10:03:12.581Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

3 - Willi Hennig’s legacy in the Nordic countries

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2016

By
Ole Seberg ,
Torbjørn Ekrem ,
Jaakko Hyvönen  and
Per Sundberg
Edited by
David Williams ,
Michael Schmitt  and
Quentin Wheeler
David Williams
Affiliation:
Natural History Museum, London
Michael Schmitt
Affiliation:
Ernst-Moritz-Arndt-Universität Greifswald, Germany
Quentin Wheeler
Affiliation:
State University of New York
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
The Future of Phylogenetic Systematics
The Legacy of Willi Hennig
 , pp. 31 - 69
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2016

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andersen, N.M. (1977). A new and primitive genus and species of Hydrometridae (Hemiptera, Gerromorpha) with a cladistics analysis of relationships within the family. Entomologica Scandinavica, 8, 301–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, N.M. (1978). Some principles and methods of cladistics analysis with notes on the uses of cladistics in classification and biogeography. Zeitschrift für Zoologische Systematik und Evolutionsforschung,16, 242–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, N.M. (1982). The semiaquatic bugs (Hemiptera, Gerromorpha). Phylogeny, adaptations, biogeography, and classification. Entomograph, 3, 1–455.Google Scholar
Andersen, N.M. (1999). The evolution of marine insects: phylogenetic, ecological and geographical aspect of species diversity in marine water striders. Ecography, 22, 98–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, N.M. (2001). The impact of W. Hennig’s “phylogenetic systematics” on contemporary entomology. European Journal of Entomology, 98, 133–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, N.M. and Weir, T.A. (2004). Australian water bugs. Their biology and identification (Hemiptera-Heteroptera, Gerromorpha and Neomorpha). Entomograph, 14, 1–344.Google Scholar
Andersen, T. (2013). In memory of Ole Anton Sæther (1936–2013). Chironomus Newsletter on Chironomidae Research, 26, 16–19.Google Scholar
Andersson, L. and Chase, M.W. (2001). Phylogeny and classification of Marantaceae. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 135, 275–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, R.D. (1968). Invertebrate Zoology. 2nd edition. Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders Company.Google Scholar
Björnstad, I.N. and Friis, I. (1971). Studies on the genus Haemanthus L. (Amaryllidaceae) I. The infrageneric taxonomy. Norwegian Journal of Botany, 19, 187–206.Google Scholar
Bonde, N. (1977). Cladistic classification as applied to vertebrates. In Major Patterns in Vertebrate Evolution (NATO Advanced Study Institutes Series, vol. 14), ed. Hecht, M.K., Goody, P.C. and Hecht, B.M.. New York, London: Plenum Press, pp. 741–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonde, N. (1981). Problems of species concepts in palaeontology. In International Symposium on “Concept and Method in Palaeontology”, Contributed Papers, ed. Martinell, J.. Barcelona, Spain: Department de Paleontologia, Universitat de Barcelona, pp. 19–34.Google Scholar
Bonde, N. (1999). Colin Patterson (1933–1998): a major vertebrate palaeontologist of the century. Geologie en Mijnbouw, 78, 255–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonde, N. (2001). L’Espéce et la dimension du temps. Biosystema, 19, 29–62.Google Scholar
Bonde, N., Høeg, J.T. and Seberg, O. (2003). Introduktion af fylogenetisk Systematik. Kladismens fremme i Danmark og andre land. Dansk Naturhistorisk Forenings Årsskrift, 13, 8–34.Google Scholar
Bremer, K. (1976). The genus Relhanina (Compositae). Opera Botanica, 40, 1–85.Google Scholar
Bremer, K. (1990). Combinable component consensus. Cladistics, 6, 369–372.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bremer, K. (1994). Branch support and tree stability. Cladistics, 10, 295–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bremer, K. and Wanntorp, H.-E. (1978). Phylogenetic systematics in botany. Taxon, 27, 317–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bremer, K. and Wanntorp, H.-E. (1979). Hierarchy and reticulations in systematics. Systematic Zoology, 28, 624–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bremer, K. and Wanntorp, H.-E. (1981). The cladistic approach to plant classification. In Advances in Cladistics, Proceedings of the First Meeting of the Willi Henning Society, ed. Funk, V.A. and Brooks, D.R.. New York: New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, pp. 87–94.Google Scholar
Bremer, K. and Wanntorp, H.-E. (1982). Fylogenetik systematic [Phylogenetic systematics]. Svensk Botanisk Tidsskrift, 76, 177–183.Google Scholar
Brummitt, R.K. (2002). How to chop up a tree. Taxon, 51, 31–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brummitt, R.K. and Sosef, M.S.M. (1998). Paraphyletic taxa are inherent in Linnean classification: a reply to Freudenstein. Taxon, 47, 411–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brundin, L. (1934). Die Coleopteren des Torneträskgebietes. Beitrag zur Ökologie und Geschichte der Käfer-walt in Schwedisch-Lappland. Lund, Sweden: Carl Bloms Boktryckei.Google Scholar
Brundin, L. (1966). Transarctic relationships and their significance, as evidenced by chironomid midges. With a monograph of the subfamilies Podonominae and Aphroteniinae and the Austral Heptagyiae. Kungliga Svenska Vetenskapsakademiens Handlingar, Fjärde series, 11, 1–472.Google Scholar
Brundin, L. (1968). Application of phylogenetic principles in systematics and evolutionary theory. In Current Problems of Lower Vertebrate Phylogeny, Proceedings of the 4th Nobel Symposium held in June 1967 at the Swedish Museum of Natural History (Naturhistoriska riksmuseet) in Stockholm, ed. Ørvig, T.. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell, pp. 473–495.Google Scholar
Brundin, L. (1972a). Phylogenetics and biogeography. Systematic Zoology, 21, 69–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brundin, L. (1972b). Evolution, causal biology, and classification. Zoologica Scripta, 1, 107–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brundin, L. (1988). Phylogenetic Biogeography. In Analytical Biogeography. An Integrated Approach to the Study of Animal and Plant Distributions, ed. Myers, A.A. and Giller, P.S., New York, London: Chapman and Hall, pp. 343–239.Google Scholar
Brundin, L. (1993). From Grimsgöl to Gondwanaland: half a century with chironomids. Cladistics, 9, 358–367.Google Scholar
Crisci, J.V. and Stuessy, T.F. (1980). Determining primitive character states for phylogenetic construction. Systematic Botany, 5, 112–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahlgren, R. (1975). A system of classification of the angiosperms to be used to demonstrate the distribution of characters. Botaniska Notiser, 128, 119–147.Google Scholar
Dahlgren, R.M.T. and Clifford, H.T. (1982). The Monocotyledons: A Comparative Study. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Dahlgren, R. and Bremer, K. (1985). Major clades of the Angiosperms. Cladistics, 1, 349–368.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dahlgren, R. and Rasmussen, F.N. (1983). Monocotyledon evolution. Characters and phylogenetic estimation. Evolutionary Biology, 16, 255–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DarlingtonP.J., Jr. (1970). A practical criticism of Hennig–Brundin ‘Phylogentic [sic] Systematics’ and Antarctic biogeography. Systematic Zoology, 19, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Queiroz, K. and Gauthier, J. (1992). Phylogenetic taxonomy. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 23, 449–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Queiroz, K. and Gauthier, J. (1994). Towards a phylogenetic system of biological nomenclature. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 9, 27–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Queiroz, K. and Cantino, P.D. (2001). Phylogenetic nomenclature and the PhyloCode. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 58, 254–271.Google Scholar
Dias, P., Assis, L.C.S. and Udulutsch, R.G. (2005). Monophyly vs. paraphyly in plant systematics. Taxon, 54, 1039–1040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, T. and Stuessy, T.F. (1985). Cladistic Theory and Methodology. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co.Google Scholar
Dupuis, C. (1956). Variations convergentes ou comparables de certains caractères des Tachinaires, notamment des Phasiinae (Dipt. Larvaevoridae); leur signification taxonomique différente selon les lignées. In Proceedings of the XIVth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen 5–12. August 1953. Copenhagen: Danish Science Press, Ltd., pp. 474–476.Google Scholar
Ebach, M.C., Williams, D.M. and Morrone, J.J. (2006). Paraphyly is bad taxonomy. Taxon, 55, 831–832.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ekrem, T. and Andersen, T. (2007). Professor Ole Anton Sæther 70 years: Four decades of chironomid research. In Contribution to the Systematics and Ecology of Aquatic Diptera: A Tribute to Ole A. Sæther, ed. Andersen, T.. Colombus, OH: The Caddis Press, pp. 1–15.Google Scholar
Engel, M.S. and Kristensen, N.P. (2013). A history of entomological classification. Annual Review of Entomology, 58, 585–607.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Estabrook, G.F. (2008). Fifty years of character compatibility concepts at work. Journal of Systematics and Evolution, 46, 109–129.Google Scholar
Farris, J.S. (1988). Hennig86, ver. 1.5. Computer program and manual, published by the author.Google Scholar
Felsenstein, J. (1985). PHYLIP, version 2.8. Tape distributed by the author.Google Scholar
Freudenstein, J.V. (1998). Paraphyly, ancestors, and classification: a response to Sosef and Brummitt. Taxon, 47, 95–104.Google Scholar
Heie, O.E. (1967). Studies on fossil aphids: (Homoptera: Aphidoidea): Especially in the Copenhagen collection of fossils in Baltic amber. Spolia Zoologica Musei Hauniensis, 26, 1–273.Google Scholar
Heie, O.E. (1969). Evolutionslære. Copenhagen: Aschehoug.Google Scholar
Heie, O.E. (1976). Evolutionslære. 2. opl. Copenhagen: Aschehoug.Google Scholar
Heie, O.E. (1973). Evolutionslära. Stockholm: Natur och Kultur Förlag.Google Scholar
Heie, O.E. (1976). Taxonomy and phylogeny of the fossil Elektraphididae Steffan, 1968 (Homoptera: Aphidoidea). Entomologica Scandinavica, 7, 53–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heie, O.E. (1980). The Aphidioidea (Hemiptera) of Fennoscandia and Denmark. I. General part. The families Mindaridae, Hormaphididae, Thelaxidae, Anoeciidae, and Pemphigidae. Fauna Entomoligica Scandinavica, 9, 1–236.Google Scholar
Heie, O.E. (1982). The Aphidioidea (Hemiptera) of Fennoscandia and Denmark. II. The family Drepanosipidae Fauna Entomoligica Scandinavica, 11, 1–176.Google Scholar
Heie, O.E. (1983). Zootaxonomi. Emdrup. Denmark: Danmarks Lærerhøjskole.Google Scholar
Heie, O.E. (1986). The Aphidioidea (Hemiptera) of Fennoscandia and Denmark. III. The family Aphididae: subfamilies Pterocommatinae and tribe Aphidini of subfamily Aphidinae. Fauna Entomoligica Scandinavica, 17, 1–314.Google Scholar
Heie, O.E. (1992). The Aphidioidea (Hemiptera) of Fennoscandia and Denmark. IV. The family Aphididae: Part 1 of tribe Macrosiphini of subfamily Aphidinae. Fauna Entomoligica Scandinavica, 25, 1–189.Google Scholar
Heie, O.E. (1994). The Aphidioidea (Hemiptera) of Fennoscandia and Denmark. V. The family Aphididae: Part 2 of tribe Macrosiphini of subfamily Aphidinae. Fauna Entomoligica Scandinavica, 28, 1–242.Google Scholar
Heie, O.E. (1995). The Aphidioidea (Hemiptera) of Fennoscandia and Denmark. IV. The family Aphididae: Part 3 of tribe Macrosiphini of subfamily Aphidinae, and family Lachnidae. Fauna Entomoligica Scandinavica, 31, 1–217.Google Scholar
Heie, O.E. (2004a). Bladlus 1. Danmarks Fauna, 87, 1–428.Google Scholar
Heie, O.E. (2004b). Bladlus 2. Danmarks Fauna, 88, 428–864.Google Scholar
Hennig, W. (1950). Grundzüge einer Theorie der phylogenetischen Systematik. Berlin: Deutscher Zentralverlag.Google Scholar
Hennig, W. (1953). Kritische Bermerkungen zum phylogenetischen System der Insekten. Beiträge zur Entomologie, 3, 1–85.Google Scholar
Hennig, W. (1957). Systematik und Phylogenese. Bericht Hundertjahrfeier Deutsche Entomologische Gesellschaft, Berlin, 1956, 51–71.Google Scholar
Hennig, W. (1965). Phylogenetic systematics. Annual Review of Entomology, 10, 97–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hennig, W. (1966). Phylogenetic Systematics. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Hennig, W. (1969). Die Stammgeschichte der Insekten. Frankfurt am Main: W. Kramer.Google Scholar
Hirvenoja, M. (1973). Revision der Gattung Cricotopus van der Wulp und Ihrer Verwandten (Diptera, Chironomidae). Annales Zoologici Fennici, 10, 1–363.Google Scholar
Hull, D.L. (1988). Science as a Process. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Humphries, C.J. and Seberg, O. (1989). Graphs and generalized tracks: some comments on method. Systematic Zoology, 38, 69–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarvik, E. (1968). Aspects of vertebrate phylogeny. In Current Problems of Lower Vertebrate Phylogeny. Proceedings of the 4th Nobel Symposium held in June 1967 at the Swedish Museum of Natural History (Naturhistoriska riksmuseet) in Stockholm, ed. Ørvig, T.. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell, pp. 496—527.Google Scholar
Koponen, T. (1968). Generic revision of Mniaceae Mitt. (Bryophyta). Annales Botanici Fennici, 5, 117–151.Google Scholar
Koponen, T. (1973). Rhizomnium (Mniaceae) in North America. Annales Botanici Fennici, 10, 1–26.Google Scholar
Koponen, T. (1980). A synopsis of Mniaceae (Bryophya) II. Ortomnion. Annales Botanici Fennici, 17, 35–55.Google Scholar
Koponen, T. (2013a). The biography of professor Risto Tuomikoski: bryologist, entomologist, linguist, mycologist, vegetation scientist and ecologist. Bryobrotheria, 11, 9–80.Google Scholar
Koponen, T. (2013b). Risto Tuomikoski as a bryologist. Bryobrotheria, 11, 110–139.Google Scholar
Kraus, O. (1984). Die Veranstaltung “Phylogenetisches Symposion”: Rückblick auf 25 Tagungen (1955–1982). Verhandlungen des NaturwissenschaftlichenVereins in Hamburg. Neues Folge, 27, 277–289.Google Scholar
Kraus, O. and Hoßfeld, U. (1998). 40 Jahre “Phylogenetisches Symposion” (1957–1997): eine Übersicht, Anfänge, Entwicklung, Dokumentation und Wirkung. Jahrbuch für Geschichte und Theorie der Biologie, 5, 157–186.Google Scholar
Kristensen, N.P. (1970). Systematik Entomologi. Copenhagen: Munksgaards Förlag.Google Scholar
Kristensen, N.P. (1975). The phylogeny of hexapod ‘orders’. A critical review of recent accounts. Zeitschrift für Zoologische Systematik und Evolutionsforschung, 13, 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kristensen, N.P. (1983). S. L. Tuxen, 8. August 1908–15. juni 1983. Videnskabelige Meddelelser fra dansk naturhistorisk Forening, 144, 157–170.Google Scholar
Lidén, M. (1986). Synopsis of Fumarioideae with a monograph of the tribe Fumarieae. Opera Botanica, 88, 1–136.Google Scholar
Lidén, M., Oxelman, B., Backlund, A., et al. (1997). Charlie is our darling. Taxon, 46, 735–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Løvtrup, S. (1953). Studies on amphibian embryogenesis. Comptes Rendus des Travaux du Laboratoire Carlsberg, Série Chimie, 28, 371–466.Google Scholar
Løvtrup, S. (1973). Classification, convention and logic. Zoologica Scripta, 2, 49–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Løvtrup, S. (1975). On the phylogenetic classification. Acta Zoologia Cracoviensia, 20, 500–523.Google Scholar
Løvtrup, S. (1977). The Phylogeny of Vertebrata. London: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Løvtrup, S. (1987). Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth. London: Croom Helm Ltd.Google Scholar
Mayr, E. and Ashlock, P.D. (1991). Principles of Systematic Zoology. 2nd edition. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Meacham, C.A. and Estabrook, G.F. (1985). Compatibility methods in systematics. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 16, 431–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meinander, M. (1972). A revision of the family Coniopterygidae (Planipennia). Acta Zoologica Fennica, 136, 1–357.Google Scholar
Michener, C.D. and Sokal, R.R. (1957). A quantitative approach to a problem in classification. Evolution, 11, 130–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muona, J. (1991). The Eucnemidae of South-East Asia and the Western Pacific: a biogeographical study. Australian Systematic Botany, 4, 165–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, G.J. (1968). Gill-arch structure in Acanthodes. In Current Problems of Lower Vertebrate Phylogeny. Proceedings of the 4th Nobel Symposium held in June 1967 at the Swedish Museum of Natural History (Naturhistoriska riksmuseet) in Stockholm, ed. Ørvig, T.. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell, pp. 129–143.Google Scholar
Nelson, G. (1978). Ontogeny, phylogeny, paleontology and the biogenetic law. Systematic Zoology, 27, 324–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, G. (2014). Cladistics at an earlier time. In The Evolution of Phylogenetic Systematics, ed. Hamilton, A.. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, pp. 139–149.Google Scholar
Nelson, G., Murphy, D.J. and Ladiges, P.Y. (2003). Brummitt on paraphyly: a response. Taxon, 52, 295–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nordal, I. (1977). Taxonomic studies on African Amaryllidaceae. Acta Universitatis Upsalensis, 437, 1–16.Google Scholar
Nordal, I. (1987). Cladistics and character weighting: a contribution to the compatibility versus parsimony discussion. Taxon, 36, 59–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nordal, I. and Duncan, T. (1984). A cladistic analysis of Haemanthus and Scadoxus. Nordic Journal of Botany, 4, 145–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nordal, I. and Stedje, B. (2005). Paraphyletic should be accepted. Taxon, 54, 5–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ørvig, T. (ed.) (1968). Current Problems of Lower Vertebrate Phylogeny. Proceedings of the 4th Nobel Symposium held in June 1967 at the Swedish Museum of Natural History (Naturhistoriska riksmuseet) in Stockholm. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.Google Scholar
Panelius, S. (1965). A revision of the European gall midges of the subfamily Porricondylinae (Diptera: Itonididae). Acta Zoologica Fennica, 113, 1–157.Google Scholar
Pridgeon, A.M., Cribb, P, , J., Chase, M.W. and Rasmussen, F. (eds.) (1999). Genera Orchidacearum. Volume 1: Apostasioideae and Cypripedioideae. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pridgeon, A.M., Cribb, P, , J., Chase, M.W. and Rasmussen, F. (eds.) (2001). Genera Orchidacearum. Volume 2. Orchidoideae (Part 1). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pridgeon, A.M., Cribb, P, , J., Chase, M.W. and Rasmussen, F. (eds.) (2003). Genera Orchidacearum. Volume 3. Orchidoideae (Part 2) Vanilloideae. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pridgeon, A.M., Cribb, P, , J., Chase, M.W. and Rasmussen, F. (eds.) (2005). Genera Orchidacearum. Volume 4. Epidendroideae (Part 1). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pridgeon, A.M., Cribb, P, , J., Chase, M.W. and Rasmussen, F. (eds.) (2009). Genera Orchidacearum. Volume 5. Epidendroideae (Part 2). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pridgeon, A.M., Cribb, P, , J., Chase, M.W. and Rasmussen, F. (eds.) (2014). Genera Orchidacearum. Volume 6. Epidendroideae (Part 3). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rasmussen, F.N. (1982). The gynostemium of the neottiod orchids. Opera Botanica, 65, 1–96.Google Scholar
Rieppel, O. (2005). Proper names in twin worlds: monophyly, paraphyly, and the world around us. Organisms, Diversity and Evolution, 5, 89–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salt, G. (1978). Howard Everest Hinton. 24. August 1912–2. August 1977. Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society, 24, 151–182.Google Scholar
Schlee, D. (1968). Vergleichende Merkmalsanalyse zur Morphologie und Phylogenie der Corynoneura-Gruppe (Diptera, Chironomidae). Zugleich eine Allgemeine Morphologie der Chironomiden-Imago (♂). Stuttgarter Beiträge zur Naturkunde, 180, 1–150.Google Scholar
Schmidt-Lebuhn, N. (2012). Fallacies and false premises: a critical assessment of the arguments for recognition of paraphyletic taxa in botany. Cladistics, 28, 174–187.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schmitt, M. (2013). From Taxonomy to Phylogenetics: Life and Work of Willi Hennig. Leiden, Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schultze, H.-P. (2009). The international influence of the Stockholm School. Acta Zoologica (Stockholm), 90 (Suppl. 1), 22–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seberg, O. (1984). Taxonomy and phylogeny of the genus Acalypha (Euphorbiaceae) in the Galápagos Archipelago. Nordic Journal of Botany, 4, 159–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seberg, O. (1988). Taxonomy, phylogeny, and biogeography of the genus Oreobolus R. Br., with comments on the biogeography of the South Pacific continents. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 96, 119–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seberg, O. (1989). Genome analysis, phylogeny, and classification. Plant Systematics and Evolution, 166, 159–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seberg, O. (2005). The Triticeae: Branch in the Tree of Life. Copenhagen: SNM, Botanisk Centralbibliotek.Google Scholar
Serra-Tosio, B. and Brundin, L. (1990). Redescription of the male of Microzetia mirabilis Seguy, 1965, an endemic Chironomid Midge from the Crozet Island (Diptera, Chironomidae). Annales de la Société entomologique de France, 26, 411–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, G.G. 1951. Horses. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Spence, J.R. and Andersen, N.M. (1994). Biology of water striders: interaction between systematics and ecology. Annual Review of Entomology, 39, 101–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stuessy, T.F. and Hörandl, E. (2014). The importance of comprehensive phylogenetic (evolutionary) classification: a response to Schmidt–Lebuhn’s commentary on paraphyletic taxa. Cladistics, 30, 291–293.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sundberg, P. (1985). Numerisk kladistik [Numerical cladistics]. Svensk Botanisk Tidskrift, 79, 205–217.Google Scholar
Swofford, D. (1985). PAUP, Ver. 2.4. Tape distributed by the author.Google Scholar
Sæther, O.A. (1963). Østensjøvann. Biologi og miljøfaktorer i en grunn, kulturpåvirket sjø. (Østensjøvann. Biology and environmental factors in a shallow, eutrophied lake). Unpublished thesis. University of Oslo, Norway.Google Scholar
Sæther, O.A. (1970). Nearctic and Palaeartic Chaoborus (Diptera: Chaoboridae). Bulletin of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada, 174, 1–57.Google Scholar
Sæther, O.A. (1971). Nomenclature and phylogeny of the genus Harnischia (Diptera: Chironomidae). Canadian Entomologist, 103, 347–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sæther, O.A. (1979a). Underlying synapomorphies and anagenetic analyses. Zoologia Scripta, 8, 305–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sæther, O.A. (1979b). Underliggende synapomorfi og enestående innvendig paralellisme belyst ved eksemplar fra Chironomidae og Chaoboridae. Entomologisk Tidsskrift, 100, 173–180.Google Scholar
Sæther, O.A. (1983). The canalized evolutionary potential: Inconsistencies in phylogenetic reasoning. Systematic Zoology, 32, 343–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sæther, O.A. (1986). The Myth of Objectivity – Post-Hennigian Deviations. Cladistics, 2, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sæther, O.A. (1990). Midges and the electronic Ouija board. The phylogeny of the Hydrobaenus group (Chironomidae, Diptera) revised. Zeitschrift für Zoologische Systematik und Evolutionsforschung, 28, 107–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Säve-Söderbergh, G. (1934). Some points of view concerning the evolution of the Vertebrates and the Classification of this group. Arkiv för Zoologi, 26 A (17), 1–20.Google Scholar
Tuomikoski, R. (1967). Notes on some principles of phylogenetic systematics. Annals Entomologici Fennici, 33, 137–147.Google Scholar
Tuxen, S.L. (1944). The hot springs of Iceland, their animal communities and their zoogeographical significance. The Zoology of Iceland 1, 11, 1–216.Google Scholar
Tuxen, S.L. (1958). Relationships of Protura. In Proceedings of the 10th International Congress of Entomology, Montreal, August 17–25, 1956, 1. Ottawa: Mortimer Ltd, pp. 493–497.Google Scholar
Tuxen, S.L. (1959). The phylogenetic significance of entognathy in entognathous apterygotes. Smithsoniam Miscellanous Collections, 137, 379–416.Google Scholar
Tuxen, S.L. (1960). Ontogenie und Phylogenie bezogen auf die Apterygoten Insekten. Zoologischer Anzeiger, 164, 362–363.Google Scholar
Tuxen, S.L. (1963). Phylogenetical trends in the Protura as shown by relationship between recent genera. Zeitschrift für Zoologische Systematik und Evolutionsforschung, 1, 277–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuxen, S.L. (1971). All Apterygota are true insects with no symphylan connection. Proceedings of the XIIIth International Congress of Entomology, Moscow 1968, I, 311–312.Google Scholar
Tuxen, S.L. (1977). The genus Berberentulus (Insecta, Protura) with key and phylogenetical considerations. Revue d’Écologie et de Biologie du Sol, 14, 597–611.Google Scholar
Vilkamaa, P. (2013). Risto Tuomikoski as an entomologist. Bryobrothera, 11, 158–174.Google Scholar
Väisänen, R. (1984). A monograph of the genus Mycomya Rondani in the Holarctic region (Diptera, Mycetophilidae). Acta Zoologia Fennica, 177, 1–346.Google Scholar
Väisänen, R (1996). New Mycomya species from the Himalayas (Diptera, Mycetophilidae). 1. Subgenus Mycomya s. str. Entomologica Fennica, 7, 99–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Väisänen, R. (2013a). New Mycomya species from the Himalayas (Diptera, Mycetophilidae). 2. Subgenera Calomycomya, Cymomya, Neomycomya and Pavomya subg. n. Zootaxa, 3666, 301–318.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Väisänen, R. (2013b). New Mycomya species from the Himalayas (Diptera, Mycetophilidae). 3. Subgenera Cesamya and Mycomyopsis. Zootaxa, 3737, 129–153.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Väisänen, R. (2014). New Mycomya species from South-East Asia (Diptera, Mycetophilidae). Zootaxa, 3815, 526–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wanntorp, H.-E. (1983). Historical constraints in adaptation theory: traits and non-traits. Oikos, 4, 157–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wanntorp, H.-E. (1993). Lars Brundin 30 May 1907–17 November 1993. Cladistics, 9, 357–367.Google Scholar
Watrous, L.E. and Wheeler, Q.D. (1981). The outgroup comparison method of character analysis. Systematic Zoology, 30, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiley, E.O. (1981). Phylogenetics. The Theory and Practice of Phylogenetic Systematics. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Williams, D.M., Ebach, M.C. and Wheeler, Q. (2005). 150 reasons for paraphyly: a response. Taxon, 54, 858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zachos, F.E. (2014). Paraphyly – again? A plea against dissociation of taxonomy and phylogenetics. Zootaxa, 3764, 594–596.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×