Commentary: Typology, homology, and homoplasy in comparative wood anatomy

IAWA Journal

Volumn 26, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 507-522

  Olson, Mark E ^a  

^a UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL AUTÓNOMA DE MÉXICO   (Mexico)

Author keywords

Ecological wood anatomy; Homology; Homoplasy; Synapomorphy; Systematics; Typology; Wood anatomy; Wood identification

Indexed keywords

EID: 28844467633     PISSN: 09281541     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1163/22941932-90000131     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Alves, E. S. & V. Angyalossy-Alfonso. 2000. Ecological trends in the wood anatomy of some Brazilian species. 1. Growth rings and vessels. IAWA J. 21: 3-30.
2. APG. 1998. An ordinal classification for the families of flowering plants. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 85: 531-553.
3. Baas, P., E. Wheeler & M. Chase. 2000. Dicotyledonous wood anatomy and the APG system of angiosperm classification. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 134: 3-17.
4. Bailey, I. W. 1944. The development of vessels in angiosperms and its significance in morphological research. Amer. J. Bot. 31: 421-428.
5. Bailey, I. W. 1957. The potentialities and limitations of wood anatomy in the study of the phylogeny and classification of angiosperms. J. Arnold Arbor. 38: 243-254.
6. Bailey, I. W. & W. W. Tupper. 1918. Size variation in tracheary cells. I. A comparison between the secondary xylems of vascular cryptogams, gymnosperms and angiosperms. Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts & Sci. 54: 149-204.
7. Barghoorn, E. S. 1941. The ontogenetic development and phylogenetic specialization of rays in the xylem of dicotyledons. II. Modification of the multiseriate and uniseriate rays. Amer. J. Bot. 28: 273-282.
8. Bookstein, F. L. 1994. Can biometrical shape be a homologous character? In: B. K. Hall (ed.), Homology: the hierarchical basis of comparative biology: 198-225. Academic Press, San Diego, California.
9. Brigandt, I. 2003. Homology in comparative, molecular, and evolutionary developmental biology: The radiation of a concept. J. Exp. Biol. 299B: 9-17.
10. Carine, M. A. & R. W. Scotland. 1999. Taxic and transformational homology: different ways of seeing. Cladistics 15: 121-129.
11. Carlquist, S. 1961. Comparative plant anatomy. Holt, Rinehart, Winston, New York.
12. Carlquist, S. & D. A. Hoekman. 1985. Ecological wood anatomy of the woody southern Californian flora. IAWA Bull. n.s. 6: 319-347.
13. Chalk, L. & M. M. Chattaway. 1935. Factors affecting dimensional variations of vessel members. Trop. Woods 41: 17-37.
14. Cuénod, P., V. Savolainen, L. W. Chatrou, M. Powell, R. J. Grayer & M. W. Chase. 2002. Molecular phylogenetics of Caryophyllales based on nuclear 18S rDNA and plastid rbc L, atp B, and mat K DNA sequences. Amer. J. Bot. 89: 132-144.
15. De Pinna, M. C. C. 1991. Concepts and tests of homology in the cladistic paradigm. Cladistics 7: 317-338.
16. Fahn, A., E. Werker & P. Baas. 1986. Wood anatomy and identification of trees and shrubs from Israel and adjacent regions. The Israeli Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Israel.
17. Frost, F. H. 1930. Specialization in secondary xylem in dicotyledons. I. Origin of vessel. Bot. Gaz. 89: 67-94
18. Gaskin, J. F., F. Ghahremani-nejad, D.-Y. Zhang & J. P. Londo. 2004. A systematic overview of Frankeniaceae and Tamaricaceae from nuclear rDNA and plastid sequence data. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 91: 401-409.
19. Goldman, N. 1988. Methods for discrete coding of morphological characters for numerical analysis. Cladistics 4: 59-71.
20. Gould, S. J. 2002. The structure of evolutionary theory. Belknap Press, Cambridge, Mass.
21. Hacke, U. G. & J. S. Sperry. 2001. Functional and ecological xylem anatomy. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 4: 97-115.
22. Hawkins, J. A. 2000. A survey of primary homology assessment: different botanists perceive and define characters in different ways. In: R. W. Scotland & R. T. Pennington (eds.), Homology & Systematics: coding characters for phylogenetic analysis: 22-53. Taylor & Francis, London.
23. Hull, D. L. 1965. The effect of essentialism on taxonomy - two thousand years of stasis (I). Brit. J. Phil. Sci. 16: 314-326.
24. IAWA Committee. 1989. IAWA list of microscopic features for hardwood identification. IAWA Bull. n.s. 10: 219-332.
25. Jansen, S. E., P. Baas, P. Gasson & E. Smets. 2003. Vestured pits: do they promote safer water transport? Int. J. Plant Sci. 164: 405-413.
26. Kaplan, D. R. 2001. The science of plant morphology: Definition, history, and role in modern biology. Amer. J. Bot. 88: 1711-1741.
27. Kribs, D. A. 1935. Salient lines of structural specialization in the wood rays of dicotyledons. Bot. Gaz. 96: 547-557.
28. Larson, A. & J. Losos. 1996. Phylogenetic systematics of adaptation. In: M. R. Rose & G. Lauder (eds.), Adaptation: 187-220. Academic Press, San Diego, California.
29. Lewontin, R. C. 1978. Adaptation. Sci. Amer. 239: 156-169.
30. Malécot, V., D. L. Nickrent, P. Baas, L. van den Oever & D. Lobreau-Callen. 2004. A morphological cladistic analysis of Olacaceae. Syst. Bot. 29: 569-586.
31. Mayr, E. 1965. Numerical phenetics and taxonomic theory. Syst. Zool. 14: 73-97.
32. Mayr, E. 1982. The growth of biological thought. Belknap Press, Cambridge, Mass.
33. Olson, M. E. 2002a. Combining data from DNA sequences and morphology for a phylogeny of Moringaceae. Syst. Bot. 27: 55-73.
34. Olson, M. E. 2002b. Intergeneric relationships within the Caricaceae-Moringaceae clade (Brassicales), and potential morphological synapomorphies of the clade and its families. Int. J. Plant Sci. 163: 51-65.
35. Olson, M. E., J. F. Gaskin & F. Ghahremani-nejad. 2003. Wood anatomy is congruent with molecular phylogenies placing Hypericopsis persica in Frankenia (Frankeniaceae); comments on vasicentric tracheids. Taxon 52: 525-532.
36. Patterson, C. 1982. Morphological characters and homology. In: K. A. Joysey & A. E. Friday (eds.), Problems of phylogenetic reconstruction: 21-74. Academic Press, London.
37. Rieppel, O. & M. Kearney. 2002. Similarity. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 75: 59-82.
38. Sattler, R. & R. Rutishauer. 1997. The fundamental relevance of morphology and morphogenesis to plant research. Ann. Bot. 80: 571-582.
39. Schwenk, K. 2001. Functional units and their evolution. In: G.P. Wagner (ed.), The character concept in evolutionary biology: 165-198. Academic Press, San Diego.
40. Schwenk, K. & G. P. Wagner. 2001. Function and the evolution of phenotypic stability: connecting pattern to process. Amer. Zool. 41: 552-563.
41. Scotland, R. W. 2000. Taxic homology and three-taxon statement analysis. Syst. Biol. 49: 480-500.
42. Slik, J. W. & P. C. van Weizen. 2001. A phylogeny of Mallotus (Euphorbiaceae) based on morphology: Indications of a pioneer origin of Macaranga. Syst. Bot. 26: 786-796.
43. Sperry, J. S. & U. G. Hacke. 2004. Analysis of circular bordered pit function I. Angiosperm vessels with homogeneous pit membranes. Amer. J. Bot. 91: 369-385.
44. Stevens, P. F. 1984. Homology and phylogeny: morphology and systematics. Syst. Bot. 9: 395-409.
45. Stevens, P. F. 1991. Character states, morphological variation, and phylogenetic analysis: A review. Syst. Bot. 16: 553-583.
46. Stevens, P. F. 2001 onwards. Angiosperm Phylogeny Website. http://www.mobot.org/MOBOT/ research/APweb/.
47. Thiele, K. 1993. The Holy Grail of the perfect character: The cladistic treatment of morphometric data. Cladistics 9: 275-304.
48. Wagner, G. P. 1989. The origin of morphological characters and the biological basis of homology. Evolution 43: 1157-1171.
49. Wagner, G. P. 2001. Characters, units, and natural kinds: an introduction. In: G. P. Wagner (ed.), The character concept in evolutionary biology: 1-10. Academic Press, San Diego, California.
50. Wheeler, E. A. & P. Baas. 1998. Wood identification - a review. IAWA J. 19: 241-264.
51. Wiens, J. J. 2001. Character analysis in morphological phylogenetics: Problems and solutions. Syst. Biol. 50: 689-699.