Relationship Diagrams

David M. Williams; Malte C. Ebach

doi:10.1017/9781139047678.007

3 - Relationship Diagrams

from Part II - Systematics: Exposing Myths

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 July 2020

David M. Williams and

Malte C. Ebach

Show author details

David M. Williams: Affiliation:
Natural History Museum, London
Malte C. Ebach: Affiliation:
University of New South Wales, Sydney

Book contents

Get access

Summary

In the preceding chapters we discussed the classification and relationships of a few animals and plants. We discussed these in relation to what can be referred to as derivative cladograms sensu Nelson: ‘a graphic representation of a hierarchical classification’ (Nelson 1979, p. 5; see Chapter 7). In some we provided a written classification. For the box jellyfish Malo kingi (see Chapter 2), for example, an indented written classification, with ranks, would look something like this

Type: Chapter
Information: Cladistics
A Guide to Biological Classification
, pp. 57 - 107

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139047678.007 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2020

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

Primary Sources

Ragan, MA. 2009. Trees and networks before and after Darwin. Biology Direct 4(43): unpaginated.Google Scholar

Secondary Sources

Burkhardt, R. 1977. The Spirit of System: Lamarck and Evolutionary Biology. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, London, UK[2nd edition with an additional essay ‘Lamarck in 1995’, published 1995].Google Scholar

Corsi, P. 1988. The Age of Lamarck: Evolutionary Theory in France 1790-1830. University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar

Corsi, P., Gayon, J. Gohau, G. & Tirard, S. 2006. Lamarck, philosophe de la nature. [Preface by Armand de Ricqlès] Science, Histoire et Société. Presses Universitaires de France, Paris.Google Scholar

Jordanova, LJ. 1984. Lamarck. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar

Laurent, G. 1997a. Jean-Baptiste Lamarck: 1744–1829. Comité des travaux historiques et scientifiques, CTHS.Google Scholar

Laurent, G. 1997b. Lamarck (1744–1829) et la paléontologie. Eclogae Geologicae Helvetiae 92: 115–121.Google Scholar

Laurent, G. 2001. La naissance du transformisme: Lamark entre Linné et Darwin. Vuibert, Paris. [Reprinted in 2017]Google Scholar

Roveda, L. 2005. Lamarck et l’art des distinctions. Revue d'histoire des sciences 58(1): 145–168.Google Scholar

Hellström, NP., André, G. & Philippe, M. 2017a. Augustin Augier’s botanical tree: transcripts and translations of two unknown sources. Huntia 16(1): 17–38.Google Scholar

Hellström, NP., André, G. & Philippe, M. 2017b. Life and works of Augustin Augier de Favas (1758–1825), author of “Arbre botanique” (1801). Archives of Natural History 44: 43–62.Google Scholar

Stevens, PF. 1983. Augustin Augier’s ‘Arbre botanique’ (1801), a remarkable early botanical representation of the natural system. Taxon 32: 203–211.Google Scholar

Tassy, P. 1991 (1998, 2nd edition). L'arbre à remonter le temps. Christian Bourgois, Paris (2nd edition Diderot Multimedia, Paris).Google Scholar

Ragan, MA. 2009. Trees and networks before and after Darwin. Biology Direct 4(43): unpaginated.Google Scholar

Platnick, NI. & Rosen, DE. 1987. Popper and evolutionary novelties. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 9: 5–16.Google Scholar

Kikusawa, R. & Reid, LA. (eds) 2018. Let’s Talk about Trees: Tackling Problems in Representing Phylogenetic Relationships among Languages. Senri Ethnological Studies 98. National Museum of Ethnology, Osaka.Google Scholar

Kutschera, U. 2011. From the scala naturae to the symbiogenetic and dynamic tree of life. Biology Direct 6: 33 [25 pages with reviews]Google Scholar

Minaka, N. 2016. Chain, tree, and network – The development of phylogenetic systematics in the context of genealogical visualization and information graphics. In: Williams, DM., Schmitt, M. & Wheeler, QD. (eds) The Future of Phylogenetic Systematics: The Legacy of Willi Hennig. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 410–430.Google Scholar

Minaka, N. 2018. Tree and network in systematics, philology, and linguistics – Structural model selection in phylogeny reconstruction. In: Kikusawa, R. & Reid, LA. (eds), Let’s Talk about Trees: Tackling Problems in Representing Phylogenetic Relationships among Languages. Senri Ethnological Studies 98. National Museum of Ethnology, Osaka, pp. 9–24.Google Scholar

Morrison, DA. 2014. Is the tree of life the best metaphor, model or heuristic for phylogenetics? Systematic Biology 63: 628–638.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Morrison, DA. 2016. Genealogies: pedigrees and phylogenies are reticulating networks not just divergent trees. Evolutionary Biology 43: 456–473.Google Scholar

Wheeler, WC. 2015. Phylogenetic network analysis as a parsimony optimization problem. BMC Bioinformatics 16: 296.Google Scholar