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-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T20:18:39.503Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

6 - Non-taxa or the Absence of –Phyly: Paraphyly and Aphyly

from Part II - Systematics: Exposing Myths

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

We will treat the terms monophyly and monophyletic group in more detail in Chapter 7. Briefly, it refers to a taxon characterised by at least one synapomorphy (also further discussed in Chapter 7). Many recent definitions of monophyly have been based on ancestry. This book is focused on classification, so here monophyly is considered to be an empirical concept, matching evidence to conclusions. Monophyletic groups are taxa; but not all taxa are monophyletic – they are, for the most part, assumed to be so.

Type
Chapter
Information
Cladistics
A Guide to Biological Classification
 , pp. 124 - 148
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

Ackery, PR. & Vane-Wright, RI. 1984. Milkweed Butterflies: Their Cladistics and Biology. Cornell Univ. Press, Ithaca, New York.Google Scholar
Archibald, JD. 1994. Metataxon concepts and assessing possible ancestry using phylogenetic systematics. Systematic Biology 43: 27–40.Google Scholar
Ashlock, PD. 1971. Monophyly and associated terms. Systematic Zoology 20: 63–69.Google Scholar
Bernardi, N. 1981. Parentesco filogenético, grupo monofilético e conceitos correlatos: novas definições. Revista Brasileira de Entomologia 25: 323–326.Google Scholar
Brummitt, RK. 1996. In defence of paraphyletic taxa. In: van der Maesen, LJG. (ed.), The Biodiversity of African Plants (Proceedings of the 14th Plenary Meeting of the Association for the Taxonomic Study of the Flora of Tropical Africa [AETFAT] Congress, Wageningen). Kluwer Academic Press, Dordrecht, pp. 371–384.Google Scholar
Brummitt, RK. 1997a. Taxonomy versus cladonomy, a fundamental controversy in biological systematics. Taxon 46: 723–734 [an enhanced version was distributed to some fellow botanists as a reprint “with added summary”].Google Scholar
Brummitt, RK. 1997b. Proposing the motion ‘that this house believes that Linnean classification without paraphyletic taxa is nonsensical’: the theoretical case. Royal Botanic Garden, Kew.1Google Scholar
Brummitt, RK. 2002. How to chop up a tree. Taxon 51: 31–41.Google Scholar
Brummitt, RK. 2014. Taxonomy versus cladonomy in the Dicot families. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 100:89–99.Google Scholar
Dawkins, R. 2004. The Ancestor’s Tail. Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London.Google Scholar
Donoghue, MJ. 1985. A critique of the biological species concept and recommendations for a phylogenetic alternative. The Bryologist 88: 172–181.Google Scholar
Ebach, MC. & Williams, DM. 2010. Aphyly: A systematic designation for a taxonomic problem. Evolutionary Biology 37:123–127.Google Scholar
Felsenstein, J., 2001. The troubled growth of statistical phylogenetics. Systematic Zoology 50: 465–467.Google ScholarPubMed
Flegr, J. 2013. Why Drosophila is not Drosophila any more, why it will be worse and what can be done about it? Zootaxa 3741 (2): 295–300.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Franz, NM. 2005. On the lack of good scientific reasons for the growing phylogeny/classification gap. Cladistics 21: 495–500.Google Scholar
Fraser, FC. 1954. The origin and descent of the order Odonata based on the evidence of persistent archaic characters. Proceedings of the Royal Entomological Society London, Series B, 23: 89–94.Google Scholar
Frodin, DG. 2004. History and concepts of big plant genera. Taxon 53: 753–776.Google Scholar
Gauthier, J., Estes, R. & de Queiroz, K. 1988. A phylogenetic analysis of Lepidosauromorpha. In: Estes, R. and Pregill, G. (eds.), Phylogenetic Relationships of the Lizard Families. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California, pp. 15–98.Google Scholar
George, AS. 2014. The case against the transfer of Dryandra to Banksia (Proteaceae) 1. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Gardens 100: 32–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hennig, W. 1936. Beziehungen zwischen geographischer Verbreitung und systematischer Gliederung bei einigen Dipterenfamilien ein Beitrag zum Problem der Gliederung systematischer Kategorien höherer Ordnung. Zoologischer Anzeiger 116: 161–175.Google Scholar
Hennig, W. 1948. Die Larvenformen der Dipteren. Akademie-Verlag, Berlin, Teil 1.Google Scholar
Hennig, W. 1953. Kritische Bemerkungen zum phylogenetischen System der Insekten. Beiträge zur Entomologie 3 (Sonderh.): 1–85.Google Scholar
Hennig, W. 1962. Veränderungen am phylogenetischen System der Insekten seit 1953. Deutsche Akad. Landwirtschaftswiss. Berlin: Tagungsber. 45: 29–42.Google Scholar
Hillis, DM. 2007. Constraints in naming parts of the Tree of Life. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 42: 331–338.Google Scholar
Marques, AC. & Migotto, AE. 2001. Cladistic analysis and new classification of the family Turulariidae (Hydrozoa, Anthomedusae). Papéis Avulsos de Zoologia 41: 465–488.Google Scholar
Mast, AR. & Thiele, KR. 2007. The transfer of Dryandra R.Br. to Banksia L.f. (Proteaceae). Australian Systematic Botany 20, 63–71.Google Scholar
Mast, AR., Jones, EH. & Havery, SP. 2005. An assessment of old and new DNA sequence evidence for the paraphyly of Banksia with respect to Dryandra (Protaeceae). Australian Systematic Botany 18: 75–88.Google Scholar
Mayr, E., 1974. Cladistic analysis or cladistic classification? Zeitschrift für zoologische Systematik und Evolutionsforschung 12:94–128.Google Scholar
Mayr, E. 1995. Systems of ordering data. Biology and Philosophy 10: 419–434.Google Scholar
Mayr, G. 2002. Osteological evidence for paraphyly of the avian order Caprimulgiformes (nightjars and allies). Journal für Ornithologie 143: 82–97.Google Scholar
Mayr, E. & Bock, WJ. 2002. Classifications and other ordering systems. Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Research 40: 169–194.Google Scholar
Meier, R. 2005. Role of dipterology in phylogenetic systematics: the insight of Willi Hennig. In: Wiegmann, BM. & Yeates, DK. (eds), The Evolutionary Biology of Flies. Columbia University Press, New York, pp. 45–62.Google Scholar
Nelson, GJ. 1971. Paraphyly and polyphyly: Redefinitions. Systematic Zoology 20: 471–472.Google Scholar
Nelson, GJ. 1972. Phylogenetic relationship and classification. Systematic Zoology 21:227–231.Google Scholar
Nelson, GJ. & Platnick, NI. 1980. Multiple branching in cladograms: Two interpretations. Systematic Zoology 29:86–91.Google Scholar
Nelson, GJ., Murphy, DJ. & Ladiges, PY. 2003. Brummitt on paraphyly: A response. Taxon 52: 295–298.Google Scholar
O’Hara, RJ. 1991. Representations of the natural system in the nineteenth century. Biology and Philosophy 6: 255–274.Google Scholar
Parenti, L. 1981. A phylogenetic and biogeographic analysis of cyprinodontiform fishes (Teleostei, Atherinomorpha). Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 168 (4): 335–557.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
Platnick, NI. 1976. Are monotypic genera possible? Systematic Zoology 25: 198–199.Google Scholar
Platnick, NI. 1977a. Monotypy and the origin of higher taxa: A reply to E. O. Wiley. Systematic Zoology 26: 355–357.Google Scholar
Platnick, NI. 1977b. Paraphyletic and polyphyletic groups. Systematic Zoology 26: 195–200.Google Scholar
Pyle, RL. & Michel, E. 2008. Zoobank: Developing a nomenclatural tool for unifying 250 years of biological information. Zootaxa 1950: 39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rieppel, O. 2005. Proper names in twin worlds: Monophyly, paraphyly, and the world around us. Organisms Diversity & Evolution 5: 89–100.Google Scholar
Rieseberg, LH. & Brouillet, L. 1994. Are many plant species paraphyletic? Taxon 43: 21–32.Google Scholar
Rosa, D. 1918. Ologenesi. R. Bemporad, Firenze. [Reprint: Vergata, A. La (ed.). 2001. Daniele Rosa, Ologenesi. Biblioteca della Scienze Italiana, no. 32. Giunti, Firenze.]Google Scholar
Schmitt, M. 2001. Willi Hennig (1913–1976). In: Jahn, I. & Schmitt, M. (eds), Darwin & Co. Eine Geschichte der Biologie in Portraits. C.H. Beck, Munich, pp. 317–343.Google Scholar
Schmitt, M. 2013. From Taxonomy to Phylogenetics–Life and Work of Willi Hennig. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Seifert, B., Buschinger, A., Aldawood, A., Antonova, V., Bharti, H., Borowiec, L., Dekoninck, W., Dubovikoff, D., Espadaler, X., Flegr, J., Georgiadis, C., Heinze, J., Neumeyer, R., Ødegaard, F., Oettler, J., Radchenko, A., Schultz, R., Sharaf, M., Trager, J., Vesnić, A., Wiezik, M. & Zettel, H. 2016. Banning paraphylies and executing Linnaean taxonomy is discordant and reduces the evolutionary and semantic information content of biological nomenclature. Insectes Sociaux 63: 237–242.Google Scholar
Soares-Cavalcanti, NM., Wanderley-Nogueira, AC., Belarmino, LC., dos Santos Barros, P. & Benko-Iseppon, AM. 2009. Comparative in silico evaluation of MYB transcription factors in eucalyptus, sugarcane and rice transcriptomes. In: Computational Intelligence Methods for Bioinformatics and Biostatistics. Springer: Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 44–55.Google Scholar
Stepanek, JG. & Kociolek, PJ. 2019. Molecular phylogeny of the diatom genera Amphora and Halamphora (Bacillariophyta) with a focus on morphological and ecological evolution. Journal of Phycology, doi:10.1111/jpy.12836Google Scholar
Thiele, KR., Weston, PH. & Mast, AR. 2015. Paraphyly, modern systematics and the transfer of Dryandra into Banksia (Proteaceae): a response to George. Australian Systematic Botany 28, 194–202.Google Scholar
Vanderlaan, TA., Ebach, MC., Williams, DM. & Wilkins, JS. 2013. Defining and redefining monophyly: Haeckel, Hennig, Ashlock, Nelson and the proliferation of definitions. Australian Systematic Botany. 26: 347–355.Google Scholar
Wanderley-Nogueira, AC., da Mota Soares-Cavalcanti, N., Belarmino, LC., Barbosa-Silva, A., Kido, EA., Do Monte, SJH., Pandolfi, V., Calsa-Junior, T. & Benko-Iseppon, AM. 2010. In silico screening for pathogenesis related-2 gene candidates in Vigna unguiculata transcriptome. In: Computational Intelligence Methods for Bioinformatics and Biostatistics. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 70–81.Google Scholar
Wiley, EO. 1977. Are monotypic genera paraphyletic? - A response to Norman Platnick. Systematic Zoology 26: 352–355.Google Scholar
Wilkins, JS. & Ebach, MC. 2013. The Nature of Classification: Relationships and Kinds in the Natural Sciences. Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Williams, DM. & Ebach, MC. 2017. Aphyly: identifying the flotsam and jetsam of systematics. Cladistics 34:459–466.Google Scholar
Witkowski, J., Sims, PA., Strelnikova, NI. & Williams, DM. 2015. Entogoniopsis gen. nov. and Trilamina gen. nov.(Bacillariophyta): a survey of multipolar pseudocellate diatoms with internal costae, including comments on the genus Sheshukovia Gleser. Phytotaxa 209: 1–89.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
×