Book contents
- Cladistics
- The Systematics Association Special Volume Series
- Cladistics
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Preface
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction: Carving Nature at Its Joints, or Why Birds Are Not Dinosaurs and Men Are Not Apes
- Part I The Interrelationships of Organisms
- Part II Systematics: Exposing Myths
- Part III The Cladistic Programme
- Part IV How to Study Classification
- 8 Modern Artificial Methods and Raw Data
- 9 How to Study Classification: Consensus Techniques and General Classifications
- 10 How to Study Classification: ‘Total Evidence’ vs. ‘Consensus’, Character Congruence vs. Taxonomic Congruence, Simultaneous Analysis vs. Partitioned Data
- 11 How to Study Classification
- 12 How to Study Classification
- Part V Beyond Classification
- Afterword
- Index
- Systematics Association Special Volumes
- References
11 - How to Study Classification
Natural Methods I: Consensus Revisited
from Part IV - How to Study Classification
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 July 2020
Book contents
- Cladistics
- The Systematics Association Special Volume Series
- Cladistics
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Preface
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction: Carving Nature at Its Joints, or Why Birds Are Not Dinosaurs and Men Are Not Apes
- Part I The Interrelationships of Organisms
- Part II Systematics: Exposing Myths
- Part III The Cladistic Programme
- Part IV How to Study Classification
- 8 Modern Artificial Methods and Raw Data
- 9 How to Study Classification: Consensus Techniques and General Classifications
- 10 How to Study Classification: ‘Total Evidence’ vs. ‘Consensus’, Character Congruence vs. Taxonomic Congruence, Simultaneous Analysis vs. Partitioned Data
- 11 How to Study Classification
- 12 How to Study Classification
- Part V Beyond Classification
- Afterword
- Index
- Systematics Association Special Volumes
- References
Summary
In Chapter 7 we noted that ‘the single most important principle of cladistics is that diverse fundamental cladograms may be combined to form a single general cladogram’ (Nelson 1979, p. 7) and that while the construction of general cladograms may related to consensus methods they are not necessarily the product of any particular kind of consensus method. We have discussed a few elements of consensus methods in Chapter 9. Below we pursue one version in a little more detail.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- CladisticsA Guide to Biological Classification, pp. 273 - 286Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
References
Beckemeyer, RJ. 2015. In remembrance: Charles Duncan Michener (Sept 22, 1918–Nov 1, 2015). Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 88: 457–464.Google Scholar
Candolle, A-P. de. 1804. Essai sur les propriétés médicales des plantes, comparées avec leurs formes extérieures et leur classification naturelle. Didot Jeune, Paris.Google Scholar
Cavalier-Smith, T. & Scoble, JM. 2013. Phylogeny of Heterokonta: Incisomonas marina, a uniciliate gliding opalozoan related to Solenicola (Nanomonadea), and evidence that Actinophryida evolved from raphidophytes. European Journal of Protistology 49: 328–353.Google Scholar
Farris, JS. & Kluge, AG. 1998. A/The brief history of three-taxon analysis. Cladistics 14: 349–362.Google Scholar
Hull, DL. 1988. Science As a Process. An Evolutionary Account of the Social and Conceptual Development of Science. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London.Google Scholar
Kim, E., Yubuki, N., Leander, BS. & Graham, LE. 2010. Ultrastructure and 18S rDNA Phylogeny of Apoikia lindahlii comb. nov. (Chrysophyceae) and its epibiontic Protists, Filos agilis gen. et sp. nov. (Bicosoecida) and Nanos amicus gen. et sp. nov. (Bicosoecida). Protist 161: 177–196.Google Scholar
Liebherr, JK. 1986. Cladistic analysis of North American Platynini and revision of the Agonum extensicolle species group (Coleoptera: Carabidae). University of California Publications in Entomology 106: 1–198.Google Scholar
Michener, CD. 1977. Discordant evolution and the classification of allodapine bees. Systematic Zoology 26: 32–56.Google Scholar
Michener, CD. 2007. The professional development of an entomologist. Annual Review of Entomology 52: 1–15.Google Scholar
Michener, CD. & Sokal, RR. 1957. A quantitative approach to a problem of classification. Evolution 11: 130–162.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. & Ladiges, PY. 2001. Gondwana, vicariance biogeography, and the New York School revisited. Australian Journal of Botany 49: 389–409.Google Scholar
Nelson, G. & Platnick, NI. 1980. Multiple branching in cladograms: two interpretations. Systematic Zoology 29: 86–91.Google Scholar
Nelson, G. & Platnick, NI. 1981. Systematics and Biogeography: Cladistics and Vicariance. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Nordal, I. 1987. Cladistics and character weighting: a contribution to the compatibility versus parsimony discussion. Taxon 36: 59–60.Google Scholar
Page, RDM. 1988. Quantitative cladistic biogeography: constructing and comparing area cladograms. Systematic Zoology 37: 254–270.Google Scholar
Patterson, C. 1982. Morphological characters and homology. In: Joysey, KA. & Friday, AE. (eds), Problems of Phylogenetic Reconstruction. Academic Press, London, pp. 21–74.Google Scholar
Rieppel, O. 2007a. The nature of parsimony and instrumentalism in systematics. Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Research 45: 177–183.Google Scholar
Rieppel, O. 2007b. Parsimony, likelihood, and instrumentalism in systematics. Biology and Philosophy 22: 141–144.Google Scholar
Scotland, RW. 1992. Cladistic theory. In: Forey, PL., Humphries, CJ., Kitching, IJ., Scotland, RW. & Williams, DM. Cladistics. A Practical Course in Systematics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 3–13.Google Scholar
Scotland, RW. & Steel, M. 2015. Circumstances in which parsimony but not compatibility will be provably misleading. Systematic Biology 64: 492–504.Google Scholar
Sokal, RR. 1985. The principles of numerical taxonomy: Twenty five years later. In: Goodfellow, M., Jones, D., & Priest, EG. (eds), Computer-Assisted Bacterial Systematics. Academic Press, London, pp. 1–20.Google Scholar
Williams, DM. & Ebach, MC. 2008. Foundations of Systematics and Biogeography. Springer, New York.Google Scholar
Williams, DM. & Ebach, MC. 2017. What is intuitive taxonomic practice? Systematic Biology 66: 637–643.Google Scholar
Wilson, EO. 1965. A consistency test for phylogenies based on contemporaneous species. Systematic Zoology 14: 214–220.Google Scholar