Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-r6qrq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T17:13:10.868Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ancestor-descendant relationships and the reconstruction of the Tree of Life

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2016

Benoît Dayrat
Benoît Dayrat*
Affiliation:
Department of Invertebrate Zoology and Geology, California Academy of Sciences, 875 Howard Street, San Francisco, California 94103. E-mail: bdayrat@calacademy.org
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The reconstruction of the Tree of Life has been a primary goal in biology since Darwin coined the expression, the “great Tree of Life” in On the Origin of Species: “The affinities of all the beings of the same class have sometimes been represented by a great tree. I believe this simile largely speaks the truth. The green and budding twigs may represent existing species; and those produced during each former year may represent the long succession of extinct species…. As buds give rise by growth to fresh buds, and these, if vigorous, branch out and overtop on all sides many a feebler branch, so by generation I believe it has been with the great Tree of Life, which fills with its dead and broken branches the crust of the earth, and covers the surface with its ever branching and beautiful ramifications” (Darwin 1859: pp. 129–130). Ernst Haeckel was the first biologist who attempted to reconstruct the Darwinian Tree of Life. However, he could not reach his goal because his method of tree reconstruction was deeply anchored in the pre-Darwinian scala naturae (Dayrat 2003). A segment of the Darwinian Tree of Life is illustrated in the unique figure published in On the Origin of Species. This figure, which Darwin referred to as a “branching diagram,” represents ancestor-descendant relationships (ADR).

Type
Matters of the Record
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 31 , Issue 3 , Summer 2005 , pp. 347 - 353
Copyright
Copyright © The Paleontological Society 

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

Literature Cited

Alroy, J. 1995. Continuous track analysis: a new phylogenetic and biogeographic method. Systematic Biology 44:152–178.Google Scholar
Ashlock, P. H. 1979. An evolutionary taxonomist's view of classification. Systematic Zoology 28:441–450.Google Scholar
Bretsky, S. S. 1979. Recognition of ancestor-descendant relationships in invertebrate paleontology. Pp. 113–163in Cracraft, J. and Eldredge, N., eds. Phylogenetic analysis and paleontology. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Cracraft, J. 1974. Phylogenetic models and classification. Systematic Zoology 23:71–90.Google Scholar
Craske, A. J., and Jefferies, R. P. S. 1989. A new mitrate from the Upper Ordovician of Norway, and a new approach to subdividing a plesion. Palaeontology 32:69–99.Google Scholar
Darwin, C. 1859. On the origin of species. J. Murray, London.Google Scholar
Darwin, C. 1869. On the origin of species, 5th ed. J. Murray, London.Google Scholar
Dayrat, B. 2003. The roots of phylogeny: how did Haeckel build his trees? Systematic Biology 52:515–527.Google Scholar
Eldredge, N. 1979. Cladism and common sense. Pp. 165–198in Cracraft, J. and Eldredge, N., eds. Phylogenetic analysis and paleontology. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Farris, J. S. 1976. Phylogenetic classification of fossils with recent species. Systematic Zoology 25:271–282.Google Scholar
Farris, J. S. 1990. Haeckel, Hull, and history. Systematic Zoology 39:81–88.Google Scholar
Fisher, D. C. 1991. Phylogenetic analysis and its application in evolutionary paleobiology. In Analytical Paleobiology. Gilinsky, N. L. and Signor, P. W., eds. Short Courses in Paleontology 4:103–122. Paleontological Society, Knoxville, Tenn.Google Scholar
Fisher, D. C. 1992. Stratigraphic parsimony. Pp. 124–129in Maddison, W. P. and Maddison, D. R., eds. MacClade: analysis of phylogeny and character evolution, Version 3. Sinauer, Sunderland, Mass.Google Scholar
Fisher, D. C. 1994. Stratocladistics: morphological and temporal patterns and their relation to phylogenetic process. Pp. 133–172in Grande, L. and Rieppel, O., eds. Interpreting the hierarchy of nature. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Fisher, D. C., Foote, M., Fox, D. L., and Leighton, L. R. 2002. Stratigraphy in phylogeny reconstruction—comment on Smith (2000). Journal of Paleontology 76:585–586.Google Scholar
Foote, M. 1996. On the probability of ancestors in the fossil record. Paleobiology 22:141–151.Google Scholar
Foote, M., and Sepkoski, J. J. Jr. 1999. Absolute measurement of the completeness of the fossil record. Nature 398:415–417.Google Scholar
Fox, D. L., Fisher, D. C., and Leighton, L. R. 1999. Reconstructing phylogeny with and without temporal data. Science 284:1816–1819.Google Scholar
Funk, D. J., and Omland, K. E. 2003. Species-level paraphyly and polyphyly: frequency, causes, and consequences, with insights from animal mitochondrial DNA. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 34:397–423.Google Scholar
Ghiselin, M. T. 1985. Mayr versus Darwin on paraphyletic taxa. Systematic Zoology 34:460–462.Google Scholar
Gingerich, P. P. 1979. The stratophenetic approach to phylogeny reconstruction in vertebrate paleontology. Pp. 41–77in Cracraft, J. and Eldredge, N., eds. Phylogenetic analysis and paleontology. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Gingerich, P. P. 1985. Species in the fossil record: concepts, trends, and transitions. Paleobiology 11:27–41.Google Scholar
Gingerich, P. P. 1990. Stratophenetics. Pp. 437–442in Briggs, D. E. G. and Crowther, P. R., eds. Paleobiology: a synthesis. Blackwell Scientific, Oxford.Google Scholar
Gregg, J. R. 1954. The language of taxonomy. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Hennig, W. 1966. Phylogenetic systematics. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.Google Scholar
Hennig, W. 1969. Die Stammesgeschichte der Insekten. Kramer, Frankfurt am Main.Google Scholar
Hennig, W. 1975. Cladistic analysis or cladistic classification? A reply to Ernst Mayr. Systematic Zoology 24:244–256.Google Scholar
Hennig, W. 1981. Insect phylogeny. J. Wiley, Chichester, U.K.Google Scholar
Hull, D. L. 1979. The limits of cladism. Systematic Zoology 28:416–440.Google Scholar
Knox, E. 1998. The use of hierarchies as organizational models in systematics. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 63:1–49.Google Scholar
Mayr, E. 1985. Darwin and the definition of phylogeny. Systematic Zoology 34:97–98.Google Scholar
Nelson, G. J. 1971. “Cladism” as a philosophy of classification. Systematic Zoology 20:373–376.Google Scholar
Nelson, G. J. 1972. Comments on Hennig's “phylogenetic systematics” and its influence on ichthyology. Systematic Zoology 21:364–374.Google Scholar
Nelson, G. J. 1973. Classification as an expression of phylogenetic relationships. Systematic Zoology 22:344–359.Google Scholar
Nelson, G. J. 1974. Darwin-Hennig classification: a reply to Ernst Mayr. Systematic Zoology 23:452–458.Google Scholar
Padian, K. 1999. Charles Darwin's views of classification in theory and practice. Systematic Biology 48:352–364.Google Scholar
Platnick, N. I. 1977. Classification, phylogenetic trees, and hypothesis testing. Systematic Zoology 26:438–442.Google Scholar
Polly, P. D. 1997. Ancestry and species definition in paleontology: a stratocladistic analysis of Paleocene-Eocene Viverravidae (Mammalia, Carnivora) from Wyoming. Contributions from the Museum of Paleontology, University of Michigan 30:1–53.Google Scholar
Reif, W.-E. 2003. Problematic issues of cladistics. 1. Ancestor recognition and phylogenetic classification. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie, Abhandlungen 230:97–143.Google Scholar
Rieppel, O. 2003. Semaphoronts, cladograms and the roots of total evidence. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 80:167–186.Google Scholar
Roopnarine, P. D. 2005. The likelihood of stratophenetic-based hypotheses of genealogical succession. Special Papers in Palaeontology 73:1–15.Google Scholar
Roopnarine, P. D., Byars, G., and Fitzgerald, P. 1999. Anagenetic evolution, stratophenetic patterns, and random walk models. Paleobiology 25:41–57.Google Scholar
Simpson, G. G. 1961. Principles of animal taxonomy. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Szalay, F. S. 1977. Ancestors, descendants, sister groups and testing of phylogenetic hypotheses: Systematic Zoology 26:12–18.Google Scholar
Wagner, P. J. 1995. Stratigraphic tests of cladistic hypotheses. Paleobiology 21:153–178.Google Scholar
Wagner, P. J. 2000. Phylogenetic analyses and the fossil record: tests and inferences, hypotheses and models. Pp. 341–371in Erwin, D. H. and Wing, S. L., eds. Deep time: Paleobiology's perspective. Paleobiology 26(Suppl. to No. 4):341–371.Google Scholar
Woodger, J. H. 1951. Science without properties. British Journal for Philosophy of Science 8:193–216.Google Scholar
Woodger, J. H. 1952. From biology to mathematics. British Journal for Philosophy of Science 9:1–21.Google Scholar