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-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T20:27:55.651Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

10 - How to Study Classification: ‘Total Evidence’ vs. ‘Consensus’, Character Congruence vs. Taxonomic Congruence, Simultaneous Analysis vs. Partitioned Data

from Part IV - How to Study Classification

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 July 2020

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

Summary

A significant debate in systematics that began in the late-1970s, developed in the mid-1980s and still with us today is the discussion on the use of what was initially called the ‘Total evidence versus Consensus’ debate. The essence of the debate can be captured with two contrasting approaches to systematics, whether to combine evidence or keep it partitioned.

Type
Chapter
Information
Cladistics
A Guide to Biological Classification
 , pp. 253 - 272
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

References

Dayrat, B. 2005. Towards integrative taxonomy. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 85: 407–415.Google Scholar
Hennig, W. 1966. Phylogenetic Systematics. University of Illinois Press, Urbana [reprinted 1979, 1999].Google Scholar
Higgins, W. 2005. Holomorphology: the total evidence approach to phylogenetic reconstruction. In: Raynal-Roques, A., Rogeuenant, A. & Prat, D. (eds), Actes du 18e Congrès mondial et exposition d’orchidées. 18th Proceedings of the World Orchid Conference. Naturalia, Turriers, pp. 268–276.Google Scholar
Hubbard, CE. 1971. William Bertram Turrill 1890-1961. Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society 17: 688–712.Google Scholar
Huxley, J. 1942. Evolution. The Modern Synthesis. George Allen & Unwin, London.Google Scholar
Olson, EC. 1991. George Gaylord Simpson: June 16, 1902-October 6, 1984. Biographical Memoirs, National Academy of Sciences (U.S.) 60: 331–353.Google Scholar
Pearse, JS. 2003. The promise of integrative biology: resurrection of the naturalist. Integrative and Comparative Biology 43: 276–277.Google Scholar
Ross, HH. 1974. Biological Systematics. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.Google Scholar
Simpson, GG. 1945. The principles of classification and a classification of mammals. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 85.Google Scholar
Turrill, WB. 1935. The investigation of plant species. Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London 147: 104–105.Google Scholar
Wake, MH. 2003. What is “Integrative Biology”? Integrative and Comparative Biology 43: 239–241.Google Scholar
Will, KW., Mishler, BD. & Wheeler, QD. 2005. The perils of DNA barcoding and the need for integrative taxonomy. Systematic Biology 54: 844–851.Google Scholar
Yeo, D., Puniamoorthy, J., Ngiam, RW. & Meier, R. 2018. Towards holomorphology in entomology: rapid and cost‐effective adult–larva matching using NGS barcodes. Systematic Entomology 43: 678–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

References

Colwell, RR. 1970. Polyphasic taxonomy of the genus Vibrio: numerical taxonomy of Vibrio cholerae, Vibrio parahaemolyticus, and related Vibrio species. Journal of Bacteriology 104: 410–433.Google Scholar
Das, S., Dash, HR., Mangwani, N., Chakraborty, J. & Kumari, S. 2014. Understanding molecular identification and polyphasic taxonomic approaches for genetic relatedness and phylogenetic relationships of microorganisms. Journal of Microbiological Methods 103: 80–100.Google Scholar
Komárek, J. 2016. A polyphasic approach for the taxonomy of cyanobacteria: principles and applications. European Journal of Phycology 51: 346–353.Google Scholar
Sneath, PHA. 1995. Thirty years of numerical taxonomy. Systematic Biology 44: 281–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vandamme, P. & Peeters, C. 2014. Time to revisit polyphasic taxonomy. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek 106: 57–65.Google Scholar
Vandamme, P., Pot, B., Gillis, M., de Vos, P., Kersters, K. & Swings, J. 1996. Polyphasic taxonomy, a consensus approach to bacterial systematics. Microbiological Reviews 60: 407–438.Google Scholar

References

Bleidorn, C. 2017. Phylogenomics: An Introduction. Springer, Berlin.Google Scholar
DeSalle, R. & Rosenfeld, J. 2012. Phylogenomics: A Primer. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.Google Scholar
Du, P. & Hahn, MW. 2019. Species tree inference under the multispecies coalescent on data with paralogs is accurate. BioRxiv 498378. https://doi.org/10.1101/498378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisen, JA. 1998. Phylogenomics: improving functional predictions for uncharacterized genes by evolutionary analysis. Genome Research 8: 163–167.Google Scholar
Gatesy, J. & Springer, MS. 2017. Phylogenomic red flags in placental radiation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 114(45): E9431–E9432.Google Scholar
Gee, H. 2003. Evolution: ending incongruence. Nature 425: 782.Google Scholar
Jeffroy, O., Brinkmann, H., Delsuc, F. & Philippe, H. 2006. Phylogenomics: the beginning of incongruence? Trends in Genetics 22: 225–231.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liu, L., Zhang, J., Rheindt, FE., Lei, F., Qu, Y., Wang, Y., Zhang, Y., Sullivan, C., Nie, W., Wang, J., Yang, F., Chen, J., Edwards, SV., Meng, J. & Wu, S. 2017. Reply to Gatesy and Springer: claims of homology errors and zombie lineages do not compromise the dating of placental diversification. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 114(45): E9433–E9434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Philippe, H., de Vienne, DM., Ranwez, V., Roure, B., Baurain, D. & Delsuc, F. 2017. Pitfalls in supermatrix phylogenomics. European Journal of Taxonomy 283: 1–25.Google Scholar
Sanderson, MJ., Nicolae, M. & McMahon, MM. 2017. Homology-aware phylogenomics at gigabase scales. Systematic Biology 66: 590–603.Google ScholarPubMed
Springer, MS. & Gatesy, J. 2017. On the importance of homology in the age of phylogenomics. Systematics and Biodiversity 16: 1–19.Google Scholar
Yadav, SP. 2007. The Wholeness in suffix -omics, -omes, and the word Om. Journal of Biomolecular Techniques 18(5): 277.Google Scholar

References

Adams, EN. 1972. Consensus techniques and the comparison of taxonomic trees. Systematic Zoology 21: 390–397.Google Scholar
Barrett, M., Donoghue, M. & Sober, E. 1991. Against consensus. Systematic Zoology 40: 486–493.Google Scholar
Bininda-Emonds, ORP. 2004. The evolution of supertrees. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 19: 315–322.Google Scholar
Bull, JJ., Huelsenbeck, JP., Cunningham, CW., Swofford, DL. & Waddell, PJ. 1993. Partitioning and combining data in phylogenetic analysis. Systematic Biology 42: 384–397.Google Scholar
Cain, AJ. & Harrison, GA. 1960. Phyletic weighting. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 135: 1–31.Google Scholar
Chippindale, PT. & Wiens, JJ. 1994. Weighting, partitioning, and combining characters in phylogenetic analysis. Systematic Biology 43: 278–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Queiroz, A. 1993. For consensus (sometimes). Systematic Biology 42: 368–372.Google Scholar
de Queiroz, A., Donoghue, MJ. & Kim, J. 1995. Separate versus combined analysis of phylogenetic evidence. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 26: 657–681.Google Scholar
Gatesy, J. & Springer, MS. 2013. Concatenation versus coalescence versus “concatalescence”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 110: E1179.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gatesy, J. & Springer, MS. 2014. Phylogenetic analysis at deep timescales: unreliable gene trees, bypassed hidden support, and the coalescence/concatalescence conundrum. Molecular Phylogenetics & Evolution 80: 231–266.Google Scholar
Gatesy, J., Matthee, C., DeSalle, R. & Hayashi, C. 2002. Resolution of a Supertree/Supermatrix paradox. Systematic Biology 51: 652–664.Google Scholar
Gatesy, J., Meredith, RW., Janecka, JE., Simmons, MP., Murphy, WJ. & Springer, MS. 2017. Resolution of a concatenation/coalescence kerfuffle: partitioned coalescence support and a robust family-level tree for Mammalia. Cladistics 33: 295–332.Google Scholar
Gavryushkina, A., Heath, TA., Ksepka, DT., Stadler, T., Welch, D. & Drummond, AJ. 2017. Bayesian total-evidence dating reveals the recent crown radiation of penguins. Systematic Biology 66: 57–73.Google Scholar
Gould, SJ. 1983. The hardening of the modern synthesis. In: Grene, M (ed.), Dimensions of Darwinism. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 71–93.Google Scholar
Huelsenbeck, JP., Swofford, DL., Cunningham, CW., Bull, JJ. & Waddell, PJ. 1994. Is character weighting a panacea for the problem of data heterogeneity in phylogenetic analysis? Systematic Biology 43: 288–291.Google Scholar
Huelsenbeck, JP., Bull, JJ. & Cunningham, CW. 1996. Combining data in phylogenetic analysis. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 11: 152–158.Google Scholar
Kluge, AG. 1989. A concern for evidence and a phylogenetic hypothesis of relationships among Epicrates (Boidae, Serpentes). Systematic Zoology 38: 7–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kluge, AG. & Farris, JS. 1969. Quantitative phyletics and the evolution of Anurans. Systematic Zoology 18: 1–32.Google Scholar
Kluge, AG. & Wolf, AJ. 1993. Cladistics: what’s in a word? Cladistics 9: 183–199.Google Scholar
Lecointre, G. & Deleporte, P. 2005. Total evidence requires exclusion of phylogenetically misleading data. Zoologica Scripta 34: 101–117.Google Scholar
Mickevich, MF. 1978. Taxonomic congruence. Systematic Zoology 27: 143–158.Google Scholar
Miyamoto, MM. 1985. Consensus cladograms and general classifications. Cladistics 1: 186–189.Google Scholar
Miyamoto, M. & Fitch, W. 1995. Testing species phylogenies and phylogenetic methods with congruence. Systematic Biology 44: 64–76.Google Scholar
Nelson, G. 1979. Cladistic analysis and synthesis: principles and definitions, with a historical note on Adanson's Familles des Plantes. Systematic Zoology 28: 1–21.Google Scholar
Nelson, GJ. 2004. Cladistics: its arrested development. In: Williams, DM. & Forey, PL. (eds), Milestones in Systematics. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 127–147.Google Scholar
Nixon, KC. & Carpenter, JM. 1993. On outgroups. Cladistics 9: 413–426.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nixon, KC. & Carpenter, JM. 1996. On simultaneous analysis. Cladistics 12: 221–241.Google Scholar
Nixon, KC. & Carpenter, JM. 2012a. On homology. Cladistics 28: 160–169.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nixon, KC. & Carpenter, JM. 2012b. More on errors. Cladistics 28: 539–544.Google Scholar
Ronquist, F., Klopfstein, S., Vilhelmsen, L., Schulmeister, S., Murray, DL. & Rasnitsyn, AP. 2012. A total-evidence approach to dating with fossils, applied to the early radiation of the Hymenoptera. Systematic Biology 61: 973–999.Google Scholar
Sneath, PHA. & Sokal, RR. 1973. Numerical Taxonomy. Freeman, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Wiens, JJ. & Chippindale, PT. 1994. Combining and weighting characters and the prior agreement approach revisited. Systematic Biology 43: 564–566.Google Scholar
Witteveen, J. 2011. [Book review] The softening of the Modern Synthesis, Julian Huxley: Evolution: The Modern Synthesis; The Definitive Edition. Massimo Pigliucci and Gerd B. Müller (eds): Evolution–The Extended Synthesis. Acta Biotheoretica 59: 333–345.Google Scholar
Zharkikh, A. & Li, W-H. 1993. Inconsistency of the maximum-parsimony method: the case of five taxa with a molecular clock. Systematic Biology 42: 113–125.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
×