Are monophyly and synapomorphy the same or different? Revisiting the role of morphology in phylogenetics

Cladistics

Volumn 27, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 94-102

  Assis, Leandro C S ^a   Rieppel, Olivier ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SÃO PAULO   (Brazil)

^b FIELD MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANCESTRY; MORPHOLOGY; PARSIMONY ANALYSIS; PHYLOGENETICS; TAXONOMY;

LAURALES; SQUAMATA;

EID: 78650771732     PISSN: 07483007     EISSN: 10960031     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1096-0031.2010.00317.x     Document Type: Article

References (84)

1. Assis, L.C.S., 2009. Coherence, correspondence, and the renaissance of morphology in phylogenetic systematics. Cladistics 25, 528-544.
2. Assis, L.C.S., Brigandt, I., 2009. Homology: homeostatic property cluster kinds in systematics and evolution. Evol. Biol. 36, 248-255.
3. Bang, R., Schultz, T.R., DeSalle, R., 2002. Development, homology and systematics. In: DeSalle, R., Giribet, G., Wheeler, W. (Eds.), Molecular Systematics and Evolution: Theory and Practice. Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel, pp. 175-186.
4. deBeer, G., 1949. Caruncles and egg teeth: some aspects of the concept of homology. Proc. Linn. Soc. London 161, 218-224.
5. Brigandt, I., 2009. Natural kinds in evolution and systematics: metaphysical and epistemological considerations. Acta Biotheor. 57, 77-97.
6. Conrad, J.L., 2008. Phylogeny and systematics of Squamata (Reptilia) based on morphology. Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. 310, 1-182.
7. Daston, L., Galison, P., 2007. Objectivity. Zone Books, New York.
8. Doyle, J.A., Endress, P.K., 2000. Morphological phylogenetic analysis of basal angiosperms: comparison and combination with molecular data. Int. J. Plant Sci. 161 (Suppl.), S121-S153.
9. Doyle, J.A., Donoghue, M.J., Zimmer, E.A., 1994. Integration of morphological and ribosomal RNA data on the origin of angiosperms. Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard. 81, 419-450.
10. Dupré, J., 1981. Natural kinds and biological taxa. Philos. Rev. 90, 66-90.
11. Estes, R., de Queiroz, K., Gauthier, J., 1988. Phylogenetic relationships within Squamata. In: Estes, R., Pregill, G. (Eds.), Phylogenetic Relationships of the Lizard Families. Stanford University Press, Stanford, pp. 119-281.
12. Evans, S.E., Barbadillo, L.J., 1998. An unusual lizard (Reptilia: Squamata) from the Early Cretaceous of Las Hoyas, Spain. Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 124, 235-265.
13. Farris, S.J., 1974. Formal definitions of paraphyly and polyphyly. Syst. Zool. 23, 548-554.
14. Ghiselin, M., 1974. A radical solution to the species problem. Syst. Zool. 23, 536-544.
15. Ghiselin, M., 1997. Metaphysics and the Origin of Species. SUNY Press, Albany, New York.
16. Greer, A.E., 1985. The relationships of the lizard genera Anelytropsis and Dibamus. J. Herpet. 19, 116-156.
17. Gregg, J.R., 1954. The Language of Taxonomy. An Application of Symbolic Logic to the Study of Classificatory Systems. Columbia University Press, New York.
18. Haber, M.H., 2005. On probability and systematics: possibility, probability, and phylogenetic inference. Syst. Biol. 54, 831-841.
19. Hallermann, J., 1998. The ethmoidal region of Dibamus taylori (Squamata: Dibamidae), with a phylogenetic hypothesis on dibamid relationships. Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 122, 385-426.
20. Härlin, M., 1999. The logical priority of the tree over characters and some of its consequences for taxonomy. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 68, 497-503.
21. Hennig, W., 1950. Grundzüge einer Theorie der Phylogenetischen Systematik. Deutscher Zentralverlag, Berlin.
22. Hennig, W., 1953. Kritische Bemerkungen zum phylogenetischen System der Insekten. Beitr. Entomol. 3 (Beilageband), 1-85.
23. Hennig, W., 1957. Systematik und Phylogenese. In: Hannemann, H.-J. (Ed.), Bericht über die Hundertjahrfeier der Deutschen Entomologischen Gesellschaft Berlin. Akademie Verlag, Berlin, pp. 50-71.
24. Hennig, W., 1965. Phylogenetic systematics. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 10, 97-116.
25. Hennig, W., 1966. Phylogenetic Systematics. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, Illinois.
26. Hermsen, E.J., Hendricks, J.R., 2008. W(h)ither fossils? Studying morphological character evolution in the age of molecular sequences Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard. 95, 72-100.
27. Hillis, D.M., Wiens, J.J., 2000. Molecules versus morphology in systematics: conflicts, artifacts, and misconceptions. In: Wiens, J.J. (Ed.), Phylogenetic Analysis of Morphological Data. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp. 1-19.
28. Hull, D.L., 1976. Are species really individuals. Syst. Zool. 25, 174-191.
29. Hull, D.L., 1989. The Metaphysics of Evolution. State University of New York Press, Albany, NY.
30. Jenner, R.A., 2004. Accepting partnership by submission? Morphological phylogenetics in a molecular millennium Syst. Biol. 53, 33-342.
31. Kearney, M., Rieppel, O., 2006. Rejecting "the given" in systematics. Cladistics 22, 369-377.
32. Kluge, A.G., 1989. A concern for evidence and a phylogenetic hypothesis of relationships among Epicrates (Bovidae, Serpentes). Syst. Zool. 38, 7-25.
33. Lee, M.S.Y., 1998. Convergent evolution and character correlation in burrowing reptiles: towards a resolution of squamate relationships. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 65, 369-453.
34. Lee, M.S.Y., 2000. Soft anatomy, diffuse homoplasy, and the relationships of lizards and snakes. Zool. Script. 29, 101-130.
35. Lee, M.S.Y., 2004. Molecular and morphological datasets have similar numbers of relevant phylogenetic characters. Taxon 53, 1019-1022.
36. Miller, J.S., Brower, A.V.Z., DeSalle, R., 1997. Phylogeny of the neotropical moth tribe Josiini (Notodontidae: Dioptinae): comparing and combining evidence from DNA sequences and morphology. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 60, 297-317.
37. Nelson, G., 1989. Cladistics and evolutionary models. Cladistics 5, 275-289.
38. Nelson, G., 2004. Cladistics: its arrested development. In: Williams, D.M., Forey, P.L. (Eds.), Milestones in Systematics, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 127-147.
39. Parsons, T.S., 1970. The nose and Jacobson's organ. In: Gans, C., Parsons, T.S. (Eds.), Biology of the Reptilia, Volume 2, Morphology B. Academic Press, London, pp. 99-191.
40. Patterson, C., 1982. Morphological characters and homology. In: Joysey, K.A., Friday, A.E. (Eds.), Problems of Phylogenetic Reconstruction. Academic Press, London, pp. 21-74.
41. Pisani, D., Benton, M.J., Wilkinson, M., 2007. Congruence of morphological and molecular phylogenies. Acta Biotheor. 55, 269-281.
42. Qiu, Y.L., Lee, J., Bernasconi-Quadroni, F., Soltis, D.S., Soltis, P.S., Zanis, M., Zimmer, E.A., Chen, Z., Savolainen, V., Chase, M.W., 1999. The earliest angiosperms: evidence from mitochondrial, plastid and nuclear genomes. Nature 402, 702-707.
43. Renner, S.S., 1999. Circumscription and phylogeny of the Laurales: evidence from molecular and morphological data. Am. J. Bot. 86, 1301-1315.
44. Renner, S.S., Chanderbali, A.S., 2000. What is the relationship among Hernandiaceae, Lauraceae, and Monimiaceae, and why is this questions so difficult to answer? Int. J. Plant Sci. 161 (Suppl.), S109-S119.
45. Renner, S.S., Schwarzbach, A.E., Lohmann, L., 1997. Phylogenetic position and floral function of Siparuna (Siparunaceae: Laurales). Int. J. Plant Sci. 158 (Suppl.), S89-S98.
46. Rieppel, O., 1984. The cranial morphology of the fossorial lizard genus Dibamus with a consideration of its phylogenetic relationships. J. Zool. Lond. 204, 289-327.
47. Rieppel, O., 2004. The language of systematics, and the philosophy of 'total evidence'. System. Biodivers. 2, 9-19.
48. Rieppel, O., 2005. Proper names in twin worlds: monophyly, paraphyly, and the worlds around us. Org. Divers. Evol. 5, 89-100.
49. Rieppel, O., 2007a. Species: kinds of individuals or individuals of a kind. Cladistics 23, 373-384.
50. Rieppel, O., 2007b. The nature of parsimony and instrumentalism in systematics. J. Zoolog. Syst. Evol. Res. 45, 177-183.
51. Rieppel, O., 2007c. The performance of morphological characters in broad-scale phylogenetic analysis. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 92, 297-308.
52. Rieppel, O., 2008. Species as a process. Acta Biotheor. 57, 33-49.
53. Rieppel, O., 2009. Hennig's enkaptic system. Cladistics 25, 311-317.
54. Rieppel, O., Kearney, M., 2002. Similarity. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 75, 59-82.
55. Rieppel, O., Kearney, M., 2007. The poverty of taxonomic characters. Biol. Philos. 22, 95-113.
56. Rieppel, O., Rieppel, M., Rieppel, L., 2006. Logic in systematics. J. Zoolog. Syst. Evol. Res. 44, 186-192.
57. Rieppel, O., Gauthier, J., Maisano, J., 2008. Comparative morphology of the dermal palate in squamate reptiles, with comments on phylogenetic implications. Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 152, 131-152.
58. Schwenk, K., 1988. Comparative morphology of the lepidosaur tongue and its relevance to squamate phylogeny. In: Estes, R., Pregill, G. (Eds.), Phylogenetic Relationships of the Lizard Families. Stanford University Press, Stanford, pp. 569-598.
59. Schwenk, K., 1993. The evolution of chemoreception in squamate reptiles: a phylogenetic approach. Brain Behav. Evol. 41, 124-137.
60. Schwenk, K., 1994. Comparative biology and the importance of cladistic classification: a case study from the sensory biology of squamate reptiles. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 52, 69-82.
61. Schwenk, K., 1995. Of tongues and noses: chemoreception in lizards and snakes. Trends Ecol. Evol. 10, 7-12.
62. Schwenk, K., 2000. Feeding in lepidosaurs. In: Schwenk, K. (Ed.), Feeding: Form, Function, and Evolution in Tetrapod Vertebrates. Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 175-291.
63. Schwenk, K., Throckmorton, G.S., 1989. Functional evolutionary morphology of lingual feeding in squamate reptiles: phylogenetics and kinematics. J. Zool. Lond 219, 153-175.
64. Scotland, R.W., Olmstead, R.G., Bennett, J.R., 2003. Phylogeny reconstruction: the role of morphology. Syst. Biol. 52, 539-548.
65. Senn, D.G., Northcutt, R.G., 1973. The forebrain and midbrain of some squamates and their bearing on the origin of snakes. J. Morphol. 140, 135-152.
66. Smith, N.D., Turner, A.H., 2005. Morphology's role in phylogeny reconstruction: perspectives from paleontology. Syst. Biol. 54, 166-173.
67. Sober, E., 1992. Monophyly. In: Keller, E.F., Lloyd, E.A. (Eds.), Keywords in Evolutionary Biology. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 202-207.
68. Townsend, T.M., Larson, A., Louis, E., Macey, J.R., 2004. Molecular phylogenetics of squamates: the position of snakes, amphisbaenians, and dibamids, and the root of the squamate tree. Syst. Biol. 53, 735-757.
69. Underwood, G., Lee, M.S.Y., 2000. The egg teeth of Dibamus and their bearing on possible relationships with gekkotan lizards. Amphib-Reptil. 21, 507-511.
70. Vidal, N., Hedges, S.B., 2005. The phylogeny of squamate reptiles (lizards, snakes, and amphisbaenians) inferred from nine nuclear protein-coding genes. C. R. Biol. 328, 1000-1008.
71. Vidal, N., Hedges, S.B., 2009. The molecular evolutionary tree of lizards, snakes, and amphisbaenians. C. R. Biol. 332, 129-139.
72. Wiens, J.J., 2004. The role of morphological data in phylogeny reconstruction: a reply to Scotland et al. (2003). Syst. Biol. 53, 653-661.
73. Wiley, E.O., 1981. Phylogenetics. The Theory and Practice of Phylogenetic Systematics. J. Wiley and Sons, New York.
74. Williams, D.M., 2004. Homologues and homology, phenetics and cladistics: 150 years of progress. In: Williams, D.M., Forey, P.L. (Eds.), Milestones in Systematics. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 191-224.
75. Williams, D.M., Ebach, M.C., 2008. Foundations of Systematics and Biogeography. Springer Science+Business Media, New York.
76. Willmann, R., 1983. Biospezies und phylogenetische Systematik. Z. Zool. Syst. Evolutionsforsch. 21, 241-249.
77. Willmann, R., 1985. Die Art in Raum und Zeit. Das Artkonzept in der Biologie und Paläontologie. Paul Parey, Hamburg.
78. Winther, R.G., 2009. Character analysis in cladistics: abstraction, reification, and the search for objectivity. Acta Biotheor. 57, 129-162.
79. Woerderman, M.W., 1919a. Beiträge zur Entwicklungsgeschichte von Zähnen und Gebiss der Reptilien. Beitrag I. Die Anlage und Etwicklung des embryonalen Gebisses als Ganzes und seine Beziehung zur Zahnleiste. Archiv für mikroskopische Anatomie 92, 104-182.
80. Woerderman, M.W., 1919b. Beiträge zur Entwicklungsgeschichte von Zähnen und Gebiss der Reptilien. Beitrag II. Uber die Anlage des Ersatzgebisses und den Zahnwechsel. Archiv für mikroskopische Anatomie 92, 183-230.
81. Woerderman, M.W., 1919c. Beiträge zur Entwicklungsgeschichte von Zähnen und Gebiss der Reptilien. Beitrag III. Uber die Anlage der Entwicklung der Zähne. Archiv für mikroskopische Anatomie 92, 231-244.
82. Woodger, J.H., 1952. From biology to mathematics. Br. J. Philos. Sci. 3, 1-21.
83. Wortley, A.H., Scotland, R.W., 2006a. Determining the potential utility of datasets for phylogeny reconstruction. Taxon 55, 431-442.
84. Wortley, A.H., Scotland, R.W., 2006b. The effect of combining molecular and morphological data in published phylogenetic analyses. Syst. Biol. 55, 677-685.