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-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T09:15:00.438Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

9 - Semaphoronts: the elements of biological systematics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2016

By
Leandro c.s. Assis
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. 213 - 229
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

Abzhanov, A., Kuo, W.P., Hartmann, C., et al. (2006 ). The calmodulin pathway and evolution of elongated beak morphology in Darwin’s finches. Nature, 442, 563–567.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arthur, W. (2011). Evolution: a Developmental Approach. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Arthur, W. and Chipman, A.D. (2005). The centipede Strigamia maritima: what it can tell us about the development and evolution of segmentation. BioEssays, 27, 653–660.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Assis, L.C.S. (2013). Are homology and synapomorphy the same or different? Cladistics, 29, 7–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Assis, L.C.S. (2014a). Species and tokogenetic homologies: 10 sutras. Cladistics, 30, 10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Assis, L.C.S. (2014b). Testing evolutionary hypotheses: from Willi Hennig to Angiosperm Phylogeny Group. Cladistics, 30, 240–242.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Assis, L.C.S. and Santos, L.M. (2014). Phylogenetics is not phylogenomics. Cladistics, 30, 8–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barrett, C.F., Davis, J.I., Leebens-Mack, J., Conran, J.G. and Stevenson, D.W. (2013). Plastid genomes and deep relationships among commelinid monocot angiosperms. Cladistics, 29, 65–87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brooks, D.R. and Wiley, E.O. (1985). Theories and methods in different approaches to phylogenetic systematics. Cladistics, 1, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brower, A.V.Z. (2015). Transformational and taxic homology revisited. Cladistics, 31, 197–201. DOI: 10.1111/cla.12076CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brower, A.V.Z. and Schawaroch, V. (1996). Three steps of homology assessment. Cladistics, 12, 265–272.Google ScholarPubMed
Brower, A.V.Z. and de Pinna, M.C.C. (2012). Homology and errors. Cladistics, 28, 529–538.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Claβen-Bockhoff, R. (2001). Plant morphology: the historic concepts of Wihelm Troll, Walter Zimmermann, and Agnes Aber. Annals of Botany, 88, 1153–1172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cracraft, J. (2000). Species concepts in theoretical and applied biology: a systematic debate with consequences. In Species Concepts and Phylogenetic Theory: A Debate, ed. Wheeler, Q.D. and Meier, R.. New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 3–14.Google Scholar
Cracraft, J. (2005). Phylogeny and evo-devo: characters, homology, and the historical analysis of the evolution of development. Zoology, 108, 345–356.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Danser, B.H. (1950). A theory of systematics. Bibliotheca Biotheoretica, 4, 117–180.Google Scholar
de Beer, G.R. (1940). Embryos and Ancestors. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
de Pinna, M.C.C. (1991). Concepts and tests of homology in the cladistic paradigm. Cladistics, 7, 367–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dikow, R.D. and Smith, W.L. (2013). Complete genome sequences provide a case study for the evaluation of gene-tree thinking. Cladistics, 29, 672–682.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Donoghue, M.J. and Kadereit, J.W. (1992). Walter Zimmermann and the growth of phylogenetic theory. Systematic Biology, 41, 74–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilbert, S.F. (2014). Developmental Biology. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates Inc.Google Scholar
Gilbert, S.F. and Epel, D. (2009). Ecological Developmental Biology: Integrating Epigenetics, Medicine, and Evolution. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates Inc.Google Scholar
Grandcolas, P., Deleporte, P., Desutter-Grandcolas, L. and Daugeron, C. (2001). Phylogenetics and ecology: as many as characters possible should be included in the cladistics analysis. Cladistics, 17, 104–110.Google Scholar
Haeckel, E. (1896). The Evolution of Man: A Popular Exposition of the Principal Points of Human Ontogeny and Evolution. New York: Appleton.Google Scholar
Hall, B.K. (ed.) (1994). Homology: the Hierarchical Basis of Comparative Biology. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J.A. (2000). A survey of primary homology assessment: different botanists perceive and define characters in different ways. In Homology and Systematics. Coding Characters for Phylogenetic Analysis, ed. Scotland, R. and Pennington, R.T.. London: Taylor & Francis, pp. 22–53.Google Scholar
Hennig, W. (1949). Zur Klärung einiger Begriffe der phylogenetischen Systematik. Forschungen und Fortschritte, 25, 136–138.Google Scholar
Hennig, W. (1950). Grundzüge einer Theorie der phylogenetischen Systematik. Berlin: Deutscher Zentralverlag.Google Scholar
Hennig, W. (1957). Systematik und Phylogenese. In Bericht über die Hundertjahrfeier der Deutschen Entomologischen Gesellschaft Berlin, ed. Hannemann, H.-J.. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, pp. 50–71.CrossRefGoogle 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. (1974). Kritische Bemerkungen zur Frage “Cladistic analysis or cladistic classification?” Zeitschrift für Zoologische Systematik und Evolutionsforschung, 12, 279–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klingenberg, C.P. (2008). Morphological integration and developmental modularity. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 39, 115–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kluge, A.G. (1985). Ontogeny and phylogenetic systematics. Cladistics, 1, 13–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Love, A. (2007). Functional homology and homology of function: biological concepts and philosophical consequences. Biology and Philosophy, 22, 691–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayden, R.L. (1997). A hierarchy of species concepts: the denouement in the saga of the species problem. In Species: The Units of Biodiversity, ed. Claridge, M.A., Dawah, H.A. and Wilson, M.R.. London: Chapman and Hall, pp. 381–424.Google Scholar
Miranda, L.S., Collins, A.G. and Marques, A.C. (2010). Molecules clarify a cnidarian life cycle – the “hydrozoan” Microhydrula limopsicola is an early life stage of the “staurozoan” Haliclystus antarcticus. PloS One, 5, 1–9.Google ScholarPubMed
Müller, G.B. (2003). Homology: the evolution of morphological organization. In Origination of Organismal Form: Beyond the Gene in Developmental and Evolutionary Biology, ed. Müller, G.B. and Newman, S.A.. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 51–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, G. (1978). Ontogeny, phylogeny, paleontology, and the biogenetic law. Systematic Zoology, 27, 324–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, G. (1985). Outgroups and ontogeny. Cladistics, 1, 29–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nelson, G. (2004). Cladistics: its arrested development. In Milestones in Systematics, ed. Williams, D.M. and Forey, P.L.. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, pp. 127–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nixon, K.C. and Carpenter, J.M. (2012). On homology. Cladistics, 28, 160–169.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Patterson, C. (1982). Morphological characters and homology. In Problems of Phylogenetic Reconstruction, ed. Joysey, K.A. and Friday, A.E.. London: Academic Press, pp. 21–74.Google Scholar
Rieppel, O.C. (1988). Fundamentals of Comparative Biology. Basel: Birkhäuser Verlag.Google Scholar
Rieppel, O. (2003). Semaphoronts, cladograms and the roots of total evidence. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 80, 167–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rieppel, O. (2005). Modules, kinds, and homology. Journal of Experimental Zoology (Molecular and Developmental and Evolution), 304B, 18–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rieppel, O. (2010). Species monophyly. Journal of Zoological Systematic and Evolution, 48, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reippel, O. (2016). Willi Hennig as philosopher. In: The Future of Phylogenetic Systematics: The Legacy of Willi Hennig, eds. D. Williams, M. Schmitt and Q. Wheeler. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 357–277.Google Scholar
Schuh, R.T. and Brower, A.V.Z. (2009). Biological Systematics: Principles and Applications. New York: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Scotland, R.W. (2010). Deep homology: a view from systematics. BioEssays, 32, 438–449.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scotland, R.W. (2011). What is parallelism? Evolution and Development, 13, 214–227.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sereno, P.C. (2007). The logical basis for morphological characters in phylogenetics. Cladistics, 23, 565–587.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shubin, N., Tabin, C. and Carroll, S. (2009). Deep homology and the origins of evolutionary novelty. Nature, 457, 418–423.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Theissen, G. and Melzer, R. (2007). Molecular mechanisms underlying origin and diversification of angiosperm flower. Annals of Botany, 100, 603–619.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vanderlaan, T.A., Ebach, M.C., Williams, D.M. and Wilkins, J.S. (2013). Defining and redefining monophyly: Haeckel, Hennig, Ashlock, Nelson and the proliferation of definitions. Australian Systematic Botany, 26, 347–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, G.P. (2001). Characters, units, and natural kinds: an introduction. In The Character Concept in Evolutionary Biology, ed. Wagner, G.P.. San Diego: Academic Press, pp. 1–10.Google Scholar
Watrous, L.E. and Wheeler, Q.D. (1981). The out-group comparison method of character analysis. Systematic Zoology, 30, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, M. and Zelditch, M.L. (2005). Evolutionary modifications of ontogeny: heterochrony and beyond. Paleobiology, 31, 354–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
West-Eberhard, M.J. (2003). Developmental Plasticity and Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wheeler, Q.D. (1990). Ontogeny and character phylogeny. Cladistics, 6, 225–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wheeler, Q.D. and Meier, R. (eds.) (2000). Species Concepts and Phylogenetic Theory: A Debate. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Wheeler, Q., Assis, L. and Rieppel, O. (2013). Heed the father of cladistics. Nature, 496, 295–296.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wiley, E.O. and Lieberman, B.S. (2011). Phylogenetics. The Theory and Practice of Phylogenetic Systematics 2nd edition,. Hoboken, NJ: J. Wiley and Sons, Inc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, D.M. (2004). Homologues and homology, phenetics and cladistics: 150 years of progress. In Milestones in Systematics, ed. Williams, D.M. and Forey, P.L.. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, pp.191–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, D.M. and Ebach, M.C. (2012). Confusing homologs and homologies: a reply to “On homology”. Cladistics, 28, 223–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfe, J.M. and Hegna, T.A. (2014). Testing the phylogenetic position of Cambrian pancrustacean larval fossils by coding ontogenetic stages. Cladistics, 30, 366–390.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zimmermann, W. (1953). Evolution : Die Geschichte ihrer Probleme und Erkenntnisse. Freiburg: Karl Alber.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] 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
×