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-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-31T18:40:37.881Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

11 - Hennig’s auxiliary principle and reciprocal illumination revisited

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2016

By
Randy D. Mooi  and
Anthony C. Gill
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. 258 - 285
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

Assis, L.C.S. and Rieppel, O. (2011). Are monophyly and synapomorphy the same or different? Revisiting the role of morphology in phylogenetics. Cladistics, 27, 94–102.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Betancur-R., R., Li, C., Munroe, T.A., Ballesteros, J.A. and Ortí, G. (2013). Addressing gene tree discordance and non-stationarity to resolve a multi-locus phylogeny of the flatfishes (Teleostei: Pleuronectiformes). Systematic Biology, 62, 763–785.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Betancur-R., R. and Ortí, G. (2014). Molecular evidence for the monophyly of flatfishes (Carangimorphariae: Pleuronectiformes). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 73, 18–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Britz, R. and Johnson, G.D. (2011). Comments on the establishment of the one to one relationship between characters as a prerequisite for homology assessment in phylogenetic studies. In Morphological and Molecular Approaches to the Phylogeny of Fishes: Integration or Conflict?, ed. De Carvalho, M.R. and Craig, M.T.. Zootaxa, 2946, 63–70.Google Scholar
Britz, R., Conway, K.W. and Rüber, L. (2014). Miniatures, morphology and molecules: Paedocypris and its phylogenetic position (Teleostei, Cypriniformes). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 172, 556–615.Google Scholar
Bryant, H.N. (1989). An evaluation of cladistic and character analyses as hypothetico-deductive procedures, and the consequences for character weighting. Systematic Zoology, 38, 214–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, M.A., Chen, W-J. and López, J.A. (2013). Are flatfishes (Pleuronectiformes) monophyletic? Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 69, 664–673.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Campbell, M.A., Chen, W-J. and López, J.A. (2014a). Molecular data do not provide unambiguous support for the monophyly of flatfishes (Pleuronectiformes): A reply to Betancur-R and Ortí. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 75, 149–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, M.A., López, J.A., Satoh, T.P., Chen, W-J. and Miya, M. (2014b). Mitochondrial genomic investigation of flatfish monophyly. Gene, 551, 176–182.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cao, N., Zaraguëta Bagilis, R. and Vignes-Lebbe, R. (2007). Hierarchical representation of hypotheses of homology. Geodiversitas, 29, 5–15.Google Scholar
Carine, M.A. and Scotland, R.W. (1999). Taxic and transformational homology: different ways of seeing. Cladistics, 15, 121–129.Google ScholarPubMed
Carvalho, M.R. de and Craig, M.T. (2011). Morphological and molecular approaches to the phylogeny of fishes: integration or conflict? Zootaxa, 2946, 1–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chakrabarty, P. (2010). The transitioning state of systematic ichthyology. Copeia, 2010, 513–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapleau, F. (1993). Pleuronectiform relationships: a cladistic reassessment. Bulletin of Marine Science, 52, 516–540.Google Scholar
Craig, M.T. (2011). The ghost of crises past: a reply to Mooi and Gill. In Morphological and Molecular Approaches to the Phylogeny of Fishes: Integration or Conflict?, ed. De Carvalho, M.R. and Craig, M.T.. Zootaxa, 2946, 33–35.Google Scholar
Cruickshank, R.H. (2011). Exploring character conflict in molecular data. In Morphological and Molecular Approaches to the Phylogeny of Fishes: Integration or Conflict?, ed. De Carvalho, M.R. and Craig, M.T.. Zootaxa, 2946, 45–51.Google Scholar
De Laet, J.E. (2005). Parsimony and the problem of inapplicables in sequence data. In Parsimony, Phylogeny, and Genomics, ed. Albert, V.A.. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 81–116.Google Scholar
de Pinna, M.G.G. (1991). Concepts and tests of homology in the cladistics paradigm. Cladistics, 7, 367–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farris, J.S. (1997). Cycles. Cladistics, 13, 131–144.Google ScholarPubMed
Farris, J.S. (2011). Systemic foundering. Cladistics, 27, 207–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farris, J.S., Kluge, A.G. and Eckardt, M.J. (1970). A numerical approach to phylogenetic systematics. Systematic Zoology, 19, 172–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, M. (2008). The evolutionary origin of flatfish asymmetry. Nature, 454, 209–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, M. (2012). Osteology of †Heteronectes chaneti (Acanthomorpha, Pleuronectiformes), an Eocene stem flatfish, with a discussion of flatfish sister-group relationships. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 32, 735–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grant, T. and Kluge, A.G. (2004). Transformation series as an ideographic character concept. Cladistics, 20, 23–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grant, T. and Kluge, A.G. (2009). Parsimony, explanatory power, and dynamic homology testing. Systematics and Biodiversity, 7, 357–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gill, A.C. and Mooi, R.D. (2010). Character evidence for the monophyly of the Microdesminae, with comments on relationships to Schindleria (Teleostei: Gobioidei: Gobiidae). Zootaxa, 2442, 51–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, J.A., Hughes, C.E. and Scotland, R.W. (1997). Primary homology assessment, characters and character states. Cladistics, 13, 275–283.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hennig, W. (1953). Kritische Bemerkungen zum phylogenetischen System der Insekten. Beiträge zur Entomologie, 3, 1–85. [English translation available at: www.canacoll.org/Diptera/pdfs/Hennig_1953_Critical_Remarks_in_Relation_to_the_Phylogenetic_System_of_insects.pdf]Google Scholar
Hennig, W. (1966). Phylogenetic Systematics. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Hennig, W. (1984). Aufgaben und Probleme stammesgeschichtlicher Forschung. Berlin: Paul Parey.Google Scholar
Källersjö, M., Albert, V.A. and Farris, J.S. (1999). Homoplasy increases phylogenetic structure. Cladistics, 15, 91–93.Google Scholar
Kluge, A.G. (1976). Phylogenetic relationships in the lizard family Pygopodidae: An evaluation of theory, methods and data. Miscellaneous Publications Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, 152, 1–72.Google Scholar
Kluge, A.G. (2005). What is the rationale for ‘Ockham’s razor’ (a.k.a. parsimony) in phylogenetic inference? In Parsimony, Phylogeny, and Genomics, ed. Albert, V.A.. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 15–42.Google Scholar
Mishler, B.D. (2005). The logic of the data matrix in phylogenetic analysis. In Parsimony, Phylogeny, and Genomics, ed. Albert, V.A.. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 57–70.Google Scholar
Mooi, R.D. (1995). Revision, phylogeny, and discussion of biology and biogeography of the fish genus Plesiops (Perciformes: Plesiopidae). Royal Ontario Museum Life Science Contributions, 159, 1–107.Google Scholar
Mooi, R.D. and Gill, A.C. (2004). Notograptidae, sister to Acanthoplesiops Regan (Teleostei: Plesiopidae: Acanthoclininae), with comments on biogeography, diet and morphological convergence with Congrogadinae (Teleostei: Pseudochromidae). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 141, 179–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mooi, R.D. and Gill, A.C. (2010). Phylogenies without synapomorphies: a crisis in fish systematics: time to show some character. Zootaxa, 2450, 26–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mooi, R.D., Williams, D.M. and Gill, A.C. (2011). Numerical cladistics, an unintentional refuge for phenetics: a reply to Wiley et al. In Morphological and Molecular Approaches to the Phylogeny of Fishes: Integration or Conflict?, ed. De Carvalho, M.R. and Craig, M.T.. Zootaxa, 2946, 17–28.Google Scholar
Neff, N.A. (1986). A rational basis for a priori character weighting. Systematic Zoology, 35, 110–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, G.J. (1994). Homology and systematics. In Homology: The Hierarchical Basis of Comparative Biology, ed. Hall, B.K.. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 101–149.Google Scholar
Nelson, G.J. (2004). Cladistics: its arrested development. In Milestones in Systematics. The Systematics Association Special Volume Series 67, ed. Williams, D.M. and Forey, P.L.. Washington DC: CRC Press, pp. 127–147.Google Scholar
Nelson, G.J. (2011). Resemblance as evidence of ancestry. In Morphological and Molecular Approaches to the Phylogeny of Fishes: Integration or Conflict?, ed. De Carvalho, M.R. and Craig, M.T.. Zootaxa, 2946, 137–141.Google Scholar
Nelson, G.J. and Platnick, N.I. (1981). Systematics and Biogeography: Cladistics and Vicariance. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
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
Patterson, C. (1994). Null or minimal models. In Models in Phylogeny Reconstruction, ed. Scotland, R., Siebert, D.J. and Williams, D.M.. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 173–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, C. (2011). Adventures in the fish trade. In Morphological and Molecular Approaches to the Phylogeny of Fishes: Integration or Conflict?, ed. De Carvalho, M.R. and Craig, M.T.. Zootaxa, 2946, 116–134.Google Scholar
Platnick, N.I. (1979). Philosophy and the transformation of cladistics. Systematic Zoology, 28, 537–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Remane, A. (1952). Die Grundlagen des Natürlichen Systems, der Vergleichenden Anatomie und der Phylogenetik. Leipzig: Geest and Portig.Google Scholar
Richter, S. (2005). Homologies in phylogenetic analyses: concept and tests. Theory in Biosciences, 124, 105–120.Google ScholarPubMed
Rieppel, O. (1988). Fundamentals of Comparative Biology. Basel: Birkhäuser.Google Scholar
Rieppel, O. (2006). Willi Hennig on transformation series: metaphysics and epistemology. Taxon, 55, 377–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rieppel, O. (2007). The metaphysics of Hennig’s phylogenetic systematics: substance, events and laws of nature. Systematics and Biodiversity, 5, 345–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rieppel, O. and Kearney, M. (2002). Similarity. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 75, 59–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosen, D.E., Nelson, G. and Patterson, C. (1979). Foreword. In Phylogenetic Systematics, ed. Hennig, W.. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, pp. vii–xiii [1999 reissue].Google Scholar
Wägele, J.-W. (2005). Foundations of Phylogenetic Systematics. Munich: Verlag Dr. Friedrich Pfeil.Google Scholar
Wiley, E.O. (1981). Phylogenetics. The Theory and Practice of Phylogenetic Systematics. New York: Wiley-Interscience.Google Scholar
Wiley, E.O. and Johnson, G.D. (2010). A teleost classification based on monophyletic groups. In Origin and Phylogenetic Interrelationships of Teleosts, ed. Nelson, J.S., Schultze, H.-P. and Wilson, M.V.H.. Munich: Verlag Dr. Friedrich Pfeil, pp. 123–182.Google Scholar
Wiley, E.O. and Lieberman, B.S. (2011). Phylogenetics. Theory and Practice of Phylogenetic Systematics, 2nd edition. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, John Wiley and Sons.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiley, E.O., Craig, M.T., Davis, M.P. Holcroft, N.I., Mayden, R.L. and Smith, W.L. (2011a). Will the real phylogeneticists please stand up? In Morphological and Molecular Approaches to the Phylogeny of Fishes: Integration or Conflict?, ed. De Carvalho, M.R. and Craig, M.T.. Zootaxa, 2946, 7–16.Google Scholar
Wiley, E.O., Craig, M.T., Davis, M.P. Holcroft, N.I., Mayden, R.L. and Smith, W.L. (2011b). A response to Mooi, Williams and Gill. In Morphological and Molecular Approaches to the Phylogeny of Fishes: Integration or Conflict?, ed. De Carvalho, M.R. and Craig, M.T.. Zootaxa, 2946, 36–40.Google Scholar
Williams, D. and Ebach, M.C. (2006). The data matrix. Geodiversitas, 28, 409–420.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
×