Beyond cladistics: Extending evolutionary classifications into deeper time levels

Hörandl, Elvira

doi:10.1002/tax.592001

Cited by 34 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We also maintain these as two separate families, recognizing the paraphyletic family Kaolishaniidae and the paraphyletic genus Mansuyia in this study. The recognition of paraphyly is in line with the growing number of recent studies that have pointed out the problem of recognizing only monophyletic taxa in classification (Brummitt , , , ; Mayr and Bock, ; Nordal and Stedje ; Hörandl , , ; Van Wyk ; Podani , ), although there has been opposition to the recognition of paraphyly in classifications (Nelson et al . ; Williams et al .…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 54%

Mansuyia Sun, and Tsinania Walcott, from the Furongian of North China and the evolution of the trilobite family Tsinaniidae

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Furongian trilobite family Tsinaniidae is characterized by a highly effaced surface and forms an important constituent of the Furongian trilobite faunas of east Gondwana. However, the origin of the characteristic morphology of this family has remained unclear. Only recently has the tsinaniid trilobite Lonchopygella megaspina been suggested to represent an intermediate stage in the evolutionary transition to other tsinaniids on the basis of the trunk segmentation. Here, we report successive occurrences of four species of the kaolishaniid genus Mansuyia and a tsinaniid trilobite Tsinania canens from the Furongian (late Cambrian) Chaomidian Formation in Shandong Province, China. A cladistic analysis including these taxa reveals that the four species of Mansuyia constitute stem‐group taxa to the family Tsinaniidae, rendering Mansuyia and the Kaolishaniidae paraphyletic. The youngest species of Mansuyia, M. taianfuensis, turns out to be the immediate sister taxon of the Tsinaniidae, displaying a closely similar morphology to the tsinaniid trilobite, Shergoldia laevigata. The generic and familial boundary therefore situated between M. taianfuensis and S. laevigata.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 54%

Mansuyia Sun, and Tsinania Walcott, from the Furongian of North China and the evolution of the trilobite family Tsinaniidae

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Comprehensive sampling reveals that some synapomorphies are really also symplesiomorphies, as in the case of double fertilization, which has been secondarily lost in some angiosperms. This, it is argued, would make angiosperms paraphyletic (Hörandl, 2007; a similar argument is made by Hörandl, 2010). However, the same character can be an apomorphy and a plesiomorphy at the same time—relative to different clades.…”

Section: Reflecting Patterns Of Biological Diversity and Evolutionarymentioning

confidence: 86%

“…Much of the discussion by Hörandl (2010) examines how incorrect cladograms can be produced if important characters are overlooked, fossil data ignored or character transitions coded incorrectly. Classifications based on these cladograms would then be wrong, which is somehow implied to be an argument for the acceptance of paraphyletic taxa.…”

Section: Practicability Usefulness and Predictive Value Of A Classifmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One is therefore hard pressed not to come to the conclusion that this is simply another straw man fallacy, trying to depict cladists as unable both to use any tool except a parsimony analysis and to consider all available data, while only their colleagues favouring paraphyletic taxa are capable of arriving at an accurate phylogeny. Ironically, several of Hörandl’s (2010) examples supposedly showing cladistics to be confounded by certain hypothetical scenarios serve only to demonstrate the author’s own confusion, with two character distributions that would in reality result in a polytomy in cladogram construction shown as resulting in a grade, and a grade called a “sister group” of the clade it leads up to. In any case, the real question here was never how to reconstruct the history of life, but how to circumscribe taxa once we have reconstructed it as best as we possibly can at the moment (Wiley, 2009).…”

Section: Practicability Usefulness and Predictive Value Of A Classifmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Fallacies and false premises—a critical assessment of the arguments for the recognition of paraphyletic taxa in botany

Schmidt‐Lebuhn¹

2011

Cladistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One of the central controversies in contemporary taxonomy and systematics revolves around whether to accept or to reject paraphyletic taxa. The present review is the result of a survey of the ongoing discussion in botany over the past ca. 15 years, and attempts to systematically and critically assess all individual arguments presented for the formal recognition of paraphyletic groups in the classification of life. Where arguments are found to be without merit, rebuttals are presented in the hope of excluding them from further discussion, which can then concentrate on those that have merit. Where arguments are found to be sound, their implications and possible solutions are discussed. The controversy around paraphyletic taxa can be broken down into three questions: whether their rejection or acceptance would lead to a classification better reflecting patterns of biological diversity and evolutionary history; whether their rejection or acceptance would lead to a more practical, useful and predictive classification; and whether their rejection is compatible with ranked and binary Linnaean taxonomy. All available arguments for paraphyletic taxa relating to the first question are demonstrated to be based on various logical fallacies or false premises, especially misunderstandings of the principles of phylogenetic systematics. The issue of usefulness is harder to resolve, as different classifications serve different needs. It is presumably unavoidable but also preferable that phylogenetic and non‐phylogenetic ways of classifying species continue to coexist, serving different needs. Finally, an insistence on monophyletic taxa is found to be incompatible with binary taxonomy under a set of very specific circumstances and assumptions whose presence and accuracy are not universally accepted. © The Willi Hennig Society 2011.

show abstract

“…Disagreements, however, still exist with respect to the treatment of paraphyletic taxa, with two sides locked in ongoing debate (reviewed in: Hörandl & Stuessy, 2010;Schmidt-Lebuhn, 2012). On the one hand, the school of evolutionary systematics advocates a classification system with a high information content (Stuessy, 1987;Van Wyk, 2007;Hörandl, 2010;Mayr & Bock, 2002) and practicability (Brummit, 2002;Brickel & al., 2008), reflecting natural processes. In this philosophy, shared descent is viewed as an important character for grouping taxa, but an emphasis is placed on degrees of divergence and similarity between elements of a certain taxon (Hörandl & Stuessy, 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Molecular phylogenetics and new (infra)generic classification to alleviate polyphyly in tribe Hydrangeeae (Cornales: Hydrangeaceae)

Smet

Mendoza

Wanke

et al. 2015

TAXON

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tribe Hydrangeeae of Hydrangeaceae currently contains nine morphologically diverse genera, many of which are well‐known garden ornamentals. Previous studies have shown eight of these genera to be phylogenetically nested within Hydrangea, rendering the latter polyphyletic. To clarify the phylogeny of tribe Hydrangeeae, the present study sequenced four chloroplast regions and ITS for an extensive set of taxa, including the type for all nine genera involved. The resulting phylogenetic hypotheses corroborate the polyphyly of Hydrangea. Since polyphyletic taxa are deemed unacceptable by both sides in the ongoing debate concerning the adherence to strict monophyly in biological classifications, a new (infra)generic classification for tribe Hydrangeeae is proposed. In order to create a stable, evolutionary informative classification a broader circumscription of the genus Hydrangea is proposed, to include all eight satellite genera of the tribe. Such treatment is considered highly preferable to an alternative where Hydrangea is to be split into several morphologically potentially unidentifiable genera. To facilitate the acceptance of the new classification proposed here, and in order to create a classification with high information content, the familiar generic names were maintained as section names where possible.

show abstract

Beyond cladistics: Extending evolutionary classifications into deeper time levels

Cited by 34 publications

References 36 publications

Mansuyia Sun, and Tsinania Walcott, from the Furongian of North China and the evolution of the trilobite family Tsinaniidae

Mansuyia Sun, and Tsinania Walcott, from the Furongian of North China and the evolution of the trilobite family Tsinaniidae

Fallacies and false premises—a critical assessment of the arguments for the recognition of paraphyletic taxa in botany

Molecular phylogenetics and new (infra)generic classification to alleviate polyphyly in tribe Hydrangeeae (Cornales: Hydrangeaceae)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About