Processed science

Farris, James S.

doi:10.1111/cla.12359

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 106 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Dupuis 1988: 84, "by definition, a monophyletic group thus includes the entire line of descent" (par définition, un groupe monophylétique comprend donc la totalité d'une lignée de descendance); see also Dupuis 1986: 221). As we know, the question of monophyly was one of the hottest debates in the early days of cladistics, as recalled by Farris (2018).…”

Section: Haeckel's "Cladus"mentioning

confidence: 99%

“Cladus” and clade: a taxonomic odyssey

Tassy¹,

Fischer²

2020

Theory Biosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The fate of "clade," both as concept and word, is reconstructed here beginning with its first appearance in 1866 as "Cladus," in Haeckel's Generelle Morphologie, continuing up to the present. Although central to phylogenetics, the concept of clade is paradoxical since it has been ambiguously understood or even misunderstood by its own promoters. Writings by Ernst Haeckel, Lucien Cuénot, and Julian Huxley, the three authors who discussed the notion of clade at length, are analyzed here in detail as a means of exploring this paradox. First conceived as a rank for a higher-level category, and later as a taxon, the clade is understood today in connection with Hennig's definition of a monophyletic group rather than through Huxley's successful but somehow ambiguous formalization. The inability of these authors to formulate a clear-cut exposition of the concept is considered here within three contexts: firstly, the burden of pre-Darwinian classifications based on similarity; secondly, the underestimation of Darwin's description of a genealogical group; and thirdly, the predominance of thinking in process (vs thinking in pattern), which was the basis of evolutionary systematics in the mid-twentieth century.

show abstract

Section: Haeckel's "Cladus"mentioning

confidence: 99%