2007
DOI: 10.1111/j.1096-0031.2007.00161.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Abstract: Systematists have questioned the distinction between characters and character states and their alignment with the traditional concept of homology. Previous definitions for character and character state show surprising variation. Here it is concluded that characters are simply features expressed as independent variables and character states the mutually exclusive conditions of a character. Together, characters and character states compose what are here termed character statements. Character statements are compo… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

6
363
1
31

Year Published

2010
2010
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 346 publications
(401 citation statements)
references
References 93 publications
6
363
1
31
Order By: Relevance
“…Two characters (Appendix 1, characters 10 and 11) were uninformative but retained for future reference. Character and character-state phrasing follow the recommendations of Sereno (2007).…”
Section: Methods and Charactersmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Two characters (Appendix 1, characters 10 and 11) were uninformative but retained for future reference. Character and character-state phrasing follow the recommendations of Sereno (2007).…”
Section: Methods and Charactersmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, when the two characters are combined ( Fig 4.1 B), it appears that the perianth was lost on the line to Chloranthaceae and Ceratophyllum , and reappeared in Hedyosmum . Since there are theoretical reasons to separate presence versus absence of a structure from its diff erent forms (Sereno, 2007 ), this question should be considered unresolved. In either case, as with Hydatellaceae , it would be unparsimonious to suggest that the reproductive structures of Chloranthaceae and Ceratophyllum are primitive.…”
Section: From the Base Of The Angiosperms To Mesangiospermsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Number of stamen whorls and presence of one versus more than one stamens were also treated as separate characters in Endress and Doyle ( 2009 ) and Doyle and Endress ( 2010 ), on the assumption that fl owers with one stamen deserve special recognition and cannot be assumed to be a result of reduction from one whorl, but here one stamen is treated as a state in the character for number of stamen whorls ( Fig 4.2 B). It may be theoretically preferable to separate characters for the presence versus absence of structures from characters for their diff erent forms (Sereno, 2007 ), and the same may be true of characters such as spiral versus whorled phyllotaxis and merism of whorls, although this coding may introduce a risk of 'long distance' eff ects (Maddison, 1993 ) that bias toward the same ancestral state in a character when it only exists in widely separated clades. However, in practice there are only a few cases in which the two approaches give diff erent results, as is discussed below.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Primary homologies were proposed by similarity or topological correspondence (DE PINNA 1991). The contingent coding was used when novel features appeared and evolved, and this feature shows variation (SERENO 2007). Multistate characters were treated as unordered (nonadditive) (FITCH 1971).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%