Ontogeny, systematics, and phylogenetics: Perspectives of future synthesis and a new model of the evolution of bilateria

Ontogeny is considered as a process that allows linking two key components of biological systematics in an objective way: historically independent character attribution and phylogeny. It is proposed to designate the general theory that unifies the ??static?? traditional taxonomy and the dynamic evolutionary process on the basis of ontogenetic transformation of shapes of organisms as the ontogenetic systematics. One of the important practical applications is a new model of the evolution of bilaterian animals, which supposes an ancestral status of clonal asexual reproduction and its multiple reduction in different lines of Bilatera.     

Toward the synthesis of taxonomy,ontogeny, and phylogenetics: A new concept of <Emphasis Type="Italic">Ontogenetic Systematics</Emphasis>

Over the past decade, the morphological paradigm in the traditional field of systematics and evolutionary biology has been challenged and has actually been replaced by the molecular paradigm. In this study, an attempt is made to evaluate the current state of the problem concerning the relationship between the fundamentals of systematics and evolution. It is shown that the interrelatedness of evolution, ontogeny, systematics, and phylogenetics is deeply underestimated in the approaches used in recent research. Instead of considering the above fields of biology as separate categories, as is common in recent studies, the synthetic concept of ontogenetic systematics is proposed, which unifies them into an integrated process.     

Is there a direct ontogenetic criterion in systematics?

Much recent literature focuses on whether ontogenetic information can be used as a direct criterion for determining the polarity of character trasformations in systematic analysis. This paper reviews the relevant literature and concludes that the ontogenetic criterion is dependent on parsimony rather than the sequence observed during ontogeny. It is not, therefore, based on the discredited arguments of recapitulation. From the perspective of phyologenetic systematics the ontogenetic criterion is a valid means of polarizing character transformations that represents a special case of a broader methodology involving parsimony. The alternative perspective perspective of patttern cladistics holds that polarity should be contained within the data and not imposed upon it. Thus, ontogeny is not required to polarize characters, but ontogenetic information can generate unequivocal character interpretations in terms of the relative generality of related attributes, and in the sense that absence precedes presence. Furthermore, ontogeny is central to systematics, providing empirical evidence of character transformation, information on the whole life cycle and an escape from systematics being teleologically related to phylogenetic inference and the theory of evolution.     

Phylogenetic interpretation of ontogenetic change: sorting out the actual and artefactual in an empirical case study of centrarchid fishes

Hypothesized relationships between ontogenetic and phylogenetic change in morphological characters were empirically tested in centrarchid fishes by comparing observed patterns of character development with patterns of character evolution as inferred from a representative phylogenetic hypothesis. This phylogeny was based on 56–61 morphological characters that were polarized by outgroup comparison. Through these comparisons, evolutionary changes in character ontogeny were categorized in one of eight classes (terminal addition, terminal deletion, terminal substitution, non-terminal addition, non-terminal deletion, non-terminal substitution, ontogenetic reversal and substitution). The relative frequencies of each of these classes provided an empirical basis from which assumptions underlying hypothesized relationships between ontogeny and phylogeny were tested. In order to test hypothesized relationships between ontogeny and phylogeny that involve assumptions about the relative frequencies of terminal change (e.g. the use of ontogeny as a homology criterion), two additional phylogenies were generated in which terminal addition and terminal deletion were maximized and minimized for all characters. Character state change interpreted from these phylogenies thus represents the maxima and minima of the frequency range of terminal addition and terminal deletion for the 8.7 × 10³⁶ trees possible for centrarchids. It was found for these data that terminal change accounts for c. 75% of the character state change. This suggests either that early ontogeny is conserved in evolution or that interpretation and classification of evolutionary changes in ontogeny is biased in part by the way that characters are recognized, delimited and coded. It was found that ontogenetic interpretation is influenced by two levels of homology decision: an initial decision involving delimitation of the character (the ontogenetic sequence), and the subsequent recognition of homologous components of developmental sequences. Recognition of phylogenetic homology among individual components of developmental sequences is necessary for interpretation of evolutionary changes in ontogeny as either terminal or non-terminal. If development is the primary criterion applied in recognizing individual homologies among parts of ontogenetic sequences, the only possible interpretation of phylogenetic differences is that of terminal change. If homologies of the components cannot be ascertained, recognition of the homology of the developmental sequence as a whole will result in the interpretation of evolutionary differences as substitutions. Particularly when the objective of a study is to discover how ontogeny has evolved, criteria in addition to ontogeny must be used to recognize homology. Interpretation is also dependent upon delimitation within an ontogenetic sequence. This is in part a function of the way that an investigator ‘sees’ and codes characters. Binary and multistate characters influence interpretation differently and predictably. The use of ontogeny for determining phylogenetic polarity as previously proposed rests on the assumptions that ancestral ontogenies are conserved and that character evolution occurs predominantly through terminal addition. It was found for these data that terminal addition may comprise a maximum of 51.9% of the total character state change. It is concluded that the ontogenetic criterion is not a reliable indicator of phylogenetic polarity. Process and pattern data are collected simultaneously by those engaged in comparative morphological studies of development. The set of alternative explanatory processes is limited in the process of observing development. These form necessary starting points for the research of developmental biologists. Separating ‘empirical’ results from interpretational influences requires awareness of potential biases in the course of character selection, coding and interpretation. Consideration of the interpretational problems involved in identifying and classifying phylogenetic changes in ontogeny leads to a re-evaluation of the purpose, usefulness and information conveyed by the current classification system. It is recommended that alternative classification schemes be pursued.     

Foundations of the new phylogenetics

Evolutionary idea is the core of the modern biology. Due to this, phylogenetics dealing with historical reconstructions in biology takes a priority position among biological disciplines. The second half of the 20th century witnessed growth of a great interest to phylogenetic reconstructions at macrotaxonomic level which replaced microevolutionary studies dominating during the 30s-60s. This meant shift from population thinking to phylogenetic one but it was not revival of the classical phylogenetics; rather, a new approach emerged that was baptized The New Phylogenetics. It arose as a result of merging of three disciplines which were developing independently during 60s-70s, namely cladistics, numerical phyletics, and molecular phylogenetics (now basically genophyletics). Thus, the new phylogenetics could be defined as a branch of evolutionary biology aimed at elaboration of "parsimonious" cladistic hypotheses by means of numerical methods on the basis of mostly molecular data. Classical phylogenetics, as a historical predecessor of the new one, emerged on the basis of the naturphilosophical worldview which included a superorganismal idea of biota. Accordingly to that view, historical development (the phylogeny) was thought an analogy of individual one (the ontogeny) so its most basical features were progressive parallel developments of "parts" (taxa), supplemented with Darwinian concept of monophyly. Two predominating traditions were diverged within classical phylogenetics according to a particular interpretation of relation between these concepts. One of them (Cope, Severtzow) belittled monophyly and paid most attention to progressive parallel developments of morphological traits. Such an attitude turned this kind of phylogenetics to be rather the semogenetics dealing primarily with evolution of structures and not of taxa. Another tradition (Haeckel) considered both monophyletic and parallel origins of taxa jointly: in the middle of 20th century it was split into phylistics (Rasnitsyn's term; close to Simpsonian evolutionary taxonomy) belonging rather to the classical realm, and Hennigian cladistics that pays attention to origin of monophyletic taxa exclusively. In early of the 20th century, microevolutionary doctrine became predominating in evolutionary studies. Its core is the population thinking accompanied by the phenetic one based on equation of kinship to overall similarity. They were connected to positivist philosophy and hence were characterized by reductionism at both ontological and epistemological levels. It led to fall of classical phylogenetics but created the prerequisites for the new phylogenetics which also appeared to be full of reductionism. The new rise of phylogenetic (rather than tree) thinking during the last third of the 20th century was caused by lost of explanatory power of population one and by development of the new worldview and new epistemological premises. That new worldview is based on the synergetic (Prigoginian) model of development of non-equilibrium systems: evolution of the biota, a part of which is phylogeny, is considered as such a development. At epistemological level, the principal premise appeared to be fall of positivism which was replaced by post-positivism argumentation schemes. Input of cladistics into new phylogenetics is twofold. On the one hand, it reduced phylogeny to cladistic history lacking any adaptivist interpretation and presuming minimal evolution model. From this it followed reduction of kinship relation to sister-group relation lacking any reference to real time scale and to ancestor-descendant relation. On the other hand, cladistics elaborated methodology of phylogenetic reconstructions based on the synapomorphy principle, the outgroup concept became its part. The both inputs served as premises of incorporation of both numerical techniques and molecular data into phylogenetic reconstruction. Numerical phyletics provided the new phylogenetics with easily manipulated algorithms of cladogram construing and thus made phylogenetic reconstructions operational and repetitive. The above phenetic formula "kinship = similarity" appeared to be a keystone for development of the genophyletics. Within numerical phyletics, a lot of computer programs were elaborated which allow to manipulate with evolutionary scenario during phylogenetic reconstructions. They make it possible to reconstruct both clado- and semogeneses based on the same formalized methods. Multiplicity of numerical approaches indicates that, just as in the case of numerical phenetics, choice of adequate method(s) should be based on biologically sound theory. The main input of genophyletics (= molecular phylogenetics) into the new phylogenetics was due to completely new factology which makes it possible to compare directly such far distant taxa as prokaryotes and higher eukaryotes. Genophyletics is based on the theory of neutral evolution borrowed from microevolutionary theory and on the molecular clock hypothesis which is now considered largely inadequate. The future developments of genophyletics will be aimed at clarification of such fundamental (and "classical" by origin) problems as application of character and homology concepts to molecular structures. The new phylogenetics itself is differentiated into several schools caused basically by diversity of various approaches existing within each of its "roots". Cladistics makes new phylogenetics splitted into evolutionary and parsimonious ontological viewpoints. Numerical phyletics divides it into statistical and (again) parsimonious methodologies. Molecular phylogenetics is opposite by its factological basis to morphological one. The new phylogenetics has significance impact onto the "newest" systematics. From one side, it gives ontological status back to macrotaxa they have lost due to "new" systematics based on population thinking. From another side, it rejects some basical principles of classical phylogenetic (originally Linnean) taxonomy such as recognitions of fixed taxonomic ranks designated by respective terms and definition of taxic names not by the diagnostic characters but by reference to the ancestor. The latter makes the PhyloCode overburdened ideologically and the "newest" systematics self-controversial, as concept of ancestor has been acknowledged non-operational from the very beginning of cladistics. Relation between classical and new phylogenetics is twofold. At the one hand, general phylogenetic hypothesis (in its classical sense) can be treated as a combination of cladogenetic and semogenetic reconstructions. Such a consideration is bound to pay close attention to the uncertainty relation principle which, in case of the phylogenetics, means that the general phylogenetic hypothesis cannot be more certain than any of initial cladogenetic or semogenetic hypotheses. From this standpoint, the new phylogenetics makes it possible to reconstruct phylogeny following epistemological principle "from simple to complex". It elaborates a kind of null hypotheses about evolutionary history which are more easy to test as compared to classical hypotheses. Afterward, such hypotheses are possible to be completed toward the classical, more content-wise ones by adding anagenetic information to the cladogenetic one. At another hand, reconstructions elaborated within the new phylogenetics could be considered as specific null hypotheses about both clado- and semogeneses. They are to be tested subsequently by mean of various models, including those borrowed from "classical" morphology. The future development of the new phylogenetics is supposed to be connected with getting out of plethora of reductionism inherited by it from population thinking and specification of object domain of the phylogenetics. As the latter is a part of an evolutionary theory, its future developments will be adjusted with the latter. Lately predominating neodarwinism is now being replaced by the epigenetic evolutionary theory to which phylistics (one of the modern versions of classical phylogenetics) seems to be more correspondent.     

Comparative Development of Anurans: Using Phylogeny to Understand Ontogeny

Hypotheses of relationships are critical to describing and understandingpatterns of evolution within groups of organisms. But rarelyhas a comparative, historical approach been employed to studydevelopmental change, particularly among anurans. A recent resurgenceof interest in collecting basic ontogenetic information providesus with the opportunity to compare ontogenetic trajectoriesin a phylogenetic framework. Larval skeletons and osteologicaldevelopment were examined for 22 taxa and compared to two hypothesesof relationships—that of Cannatella, and one proposedherein based on 41 morphological characters from larvae and62 from adults. Larval characters were mapped on the alternatecladograms using the ACCTRAN optimization criterion. Severallarval features are highly conserved among some anurans, suggestingthat there is some level of canalization of morphology earlyin ontogeny. In contrast, a number of morphologies vary amonggroups, supporting the fact that there have been major evolutionarymodifications to anuran larval morphologies early in ontogenyand in the early evolutionary history of anurans.     

Patterns of intraspecific variation through ontogeny: a case study of the Cretaceous nautilid Eutrephoceras dekayi and modern Nautilus pompilius

The magnitude and ontogenetic patterns of intraspecific variation can provide important insights into the evolution and development of organisms. Understanding the intraspecific variation of organisms is also a key to correctly pursuing studies in major fields of palaeontology. However, intraspecific variation has been largely overlooked in ectocochleate cephalopods, particularly nautilids. Furthermore, little is known regarding the evolutionary pattern. Here, we present morphological data for the Cretaceous nautilid Eutrephoceras dekayi (Morton) and the modern nautilid Nautilus pompilius Linnaeus through ontogeny. The data are used to describe conch morphology and to elucidate the evolutionary patterns of intraspecific variation. We discovered a similar overall pattern of growth trajectories and the presence of morphological changes at hatching and maturity in both taxa. We also found that intraspecific variation is higher in earlier ontogeny than in later ontogeny in both taxa. The high variation in earlier ontogeny may imply increased flexibility in changing the timing of developmental events, which probably played an important role in nautilid evolution. We assume that the decrease in variation in later ontogeny reflects developmental constraints. Lastly, we compared the similarity/dissimilarity of ontogenetic patterns of variation between taxa. Results reveal that the similarity/dissimilarity of the ontogenetic pattern differs between E. dekayi and N. pompilius. We conclude that this shift in the ontogenetic pattern of variation may be rooted in changes in the developmental programme of nautilids through time. We propose that studying ontogenetic patterns of intraspecific variation can provide new insights into the evolution and development of organisms.     

Systemic grounds of morphogenesis and their manifestation in the fossil record

Morphogenetic mechanisms form an integrity purposed to secure the due course of ontogeny towards the adult norm. This purposefulness is a principal feature of living organization that requires an explanation. Each step in evolution is a compelled reorganization of the ontogenetic system towards a new ultimate goal (system??s equilibrium state), i.e., a new norm. An increase in stability of realization of the latter, caused by natural selection, results in progressive remodeling of ontogeny of the evolutionary novelty which spreads in succeeding life cycles towards the earlier stages. As a result, the difference between current ontogenetic record of the novelty and the ancestral developmental pattern tends to change more and more from the prolonging (recapitulative) to divergent one, corresponding to Baer??s law. In the fossil record, the changes caused by these stabilizing processes result in a number of manifestations, such as initially labile expression of new acquisitions, the remodeling of their morphogenesis with time and the predominant maintenance of ancestral traits in late ontogeny of the closest descendants.     

Testing heterochrony: Connecting skull shape ontogeny and evolution of feeding adaptations in baleen whales

Ontogeny plays a key role in the evolution of organisms, as changes during the complex processes of development can allow for new traits to arise. Identifying changes in ontogenetic allometry—the relationship between skull shape and size during growth—can reveal the processes underlying major evolutionary transformations. Baleen whales (Mysticeti, Cetacea) underwent major morphological changes in transitioning from their ancestral raptorial feeding mode to the three specialized filter-feeding modes observed in extant taxa. Heterochronic processes have been implicated in the evolution of these feeding modes, and their associated specialized cranial morphologies, but their role has never been tested with quantitative data. Here, we quantified skull shapes ontogeny and reconstructed ancestral allometric trajectories using 3D geometric morphometrics and phylogenetic comparative methods on sample representing modern mysticetes diversity. Our results demonstrate that Mysticeti, while having a common developmental trajectory, present distinct cranial shapes from early in their ontogeny corresponding to their different feeding ecologies. Size is the main driver of shape disparity across mysticetes. Disparate heterochronic processes are evident in the evolution of the group: skim feeders present accelerated growth relative to the ancestral nodes, while Balaenopteridae have overall slower growth, or pedomorphosis. Gray whales are the only taxon with a relatively faster rate of growth in this group, which might be connected to its unique benthic feeding strategy. Reconstructed ancestral allometries and related skull shapes indicate that extinct taxa used less specialized filter-feeding modes, a finding broadly in line with the available fossil evidence.     

中国近海牡蛎系统分类研究的现状和对策

探讨了中国近海沿岸牡蛎分类的诸多疑难和热点问题,回顾了国内外包括贝类等动物的分子系统发生学研究的主要进展,分析了中国近海牡蛎系统分类目前存在的问题,重点阐述了利用分子标记等手段解决形态相似种的鉴定和种系发生关系等问题的巨大潜力,报道了利用分子标记进行牡蛎分类研究所取得的最新进展。预期经典分类学和分子系统发生学研究的交叉综合,将大力推动中国近海牡蛎的系统分类和系统发生研究的发展。     

Evaluating paedomorphic heterochrony in trilobites: the case of the diminutive trilobite Flexicalymene retrorsa minuens from the Cincinnatian Series (Upper Ordovician), Cincinnati region

Flexicalymene retrorsa minuens from the uppermost 3 m of the Waynesville Formation of the Cincinnatian Series (Upper Ordovician) of North America lived approximately 445 Ma and exhibited marked reduction in maximum size relative to its stratigraphically subjacent sister subspecies, Flexicalymene retrorsa retrorsa. Phylogenetic analysis is consistent with the notion that F. retrorsa retrorsa was the ancestor of F. retrorsa minuens. F. retrorsa minuens has been claimed to differ from F. retrorsa retrorsa"in size alone," and thus presents a plausible example of global paedomorphic evolution in trilobites. Despite strong similarity in the overall form of the two subspecies, F. retrorsa minuens is neither a dwarf nor a simple progenetic descendant of F. retrorsa retrorsa. More complex patterns of global heterochronic paedomorphosis, such as a neotonic decrease in the rate of progress along a common ontogenetic trajectory with respect to size, coupled with growth cessation at a small size, "sequential" progenesis, or non-uniform changes in the rate of progress along a shared ontogenetic trajectory with respect to size, can also be rejected. Rather, differences between these subspecies are more consistent with localized changes in rates of character development than with a global heterochronic modification of the ancestral ontogeny. The evolution of F. retrorsa minuens from F. retrorsa retrorsa was largely dominated by modifications of the development of characters already evident in the ancestral ontogeny, not by the origin of novel structures. Factors promoting size reduction in F. retrorsa minuens appear to have been specific to this subspecies, because other co-occurring taxa, including other trilobite species, do not show marked differences in mean size.     

Evolutionary Development in Australopithecus africanus

Evolutionary developmental biology is quickly transforming our understanding of how lineages evolve through the modification of ontogenetic processes. Yet, while great strides have been made in the study of neontological forms, it is much more difficult to apply the principles of evo-devo to the miserly fossil record. Because fossils are static entities, we as researchers can only infer evolution and development by drawing connections between them. The choices of how we join specimens together??juveniles to adults to study ontogeny, taxon to taxon to study evolution??can dramatically affect our results. Here, I examine paedomorphism in the fossil hominin species Australopithecus africanus. Using extant African apes as proxies for ancestral hominin morphology, I demonstrate that Sts 71 is most similar to a sub-adult African ape, suggesting that A. africanus is paedomorphic relative to the presumed ancestral form. I then plot ontogenetic size and shape in extant great apes, humans, and A. africanus in order to assess patterns of ontogenetic allometry. Results indicate that ontogenetic allometry in A. africanus, subsequent to M1 occlusion is similar to that in modern humans and bonobos; gorillas, chimpanzees, and orangutans share a different pattern of size-shape relationship. Combined with results from the analysis of paedomorphism plus knowledge about the developmental chronologies of this group, these findings suggest that paedomorphism in A. africanus arises relatively early in ontogeny.     

ASCOMA ONTOGENY: IS THIS CHARACTER SET OF ANY USE IN THE SYSTEMATICS OF LICHENIZED ASCOMYCETES?

The use of ascoma ontogeny in the systematics of lichenized asco-mycetes is reviewed briefly. Two recently studied examples are discussed to illustrate the use of ontogenetic studies to discover phylogenetic relationships. As one example, theAgyriaceaewas mainly circumscribed by the ascus type and included diverse genera.Xylographais characterized by lirelliform apothecia. However, the ascoma development shares the ontogenetic pattern observed inTrapeliaand its placement in the family was confirmed. In contrast,Anamylopsoraexhibited a substantially different apothecial development and was separated as a family of its own. As a second example, theCandelariaceaeis based on chemical characters. With the detection of pulvinic acid derivatives also in the genusLecanora, the distinction of theCandelariaceaeandLecanoraceaebecame doubtful. Therefore, the ascoma ontogeny was employed to evaluate this classification and is illustrated here in detail forCandelaria fibrosa. The substantial similarity of the ascoma development found in both families suggests that both might be better united. Finally, a general discussion of the significance of ontogenetic characters in lichen taxonomy is included.     

Ontogeny and the fossil record: what,if anything,is an adult dinosaur?

Identification of the ontogenetic status of an extinct organism is complex, and yet this underpins major areas of research, from taxonomy and systematics to ecology and evolution. In the case of the non-avialan dinosaurs, at least some were reproductively mature before they were skeletally mature, and a lack of consensus on how to define an ‘adult’ animal causes problems for even basic scientific investigations. Here we review the current methods available to determine the age of non-avialan dinosaurs, discuss the definitions of different ontogenetic stages, and summarize the implications of these disparate definitions for dinosaur palaeontology. Most critically, a growing body of evidence suggests that many dinosaurs that would be considered ‘adults’ in a modern-day field study are considered ‘juveniles’ or ‘subadults’ in palaeontological contexts.     

Evolutionary basis of parallelism in North American scincid lizards

This study uses a phylogenetic framework to explore the causes of parallelism in two North American scincid lizard assemblages: the skiltonianus and fasciatus species groups of the genus Plestiodon. Each group consists of several closely related species with conserved neonate morphology; features that distinguish species become accentuated during ontogeny, and these differences often resemble different endpoints along a developmental continuum. This continuum is believed to be an expression of the ancestral ontogeny, and has led to the hypothesis that evolutionary change in development has generated much of the observed morphological diversity. However, progress on understanding these mechanisms is limited by a lack of well-supported phylogenetic data for the fasciatus group, and for Plestiodon in general. Recent phylogenetic studies on the skiltonianus group have revealed previously undetected cases of parallelism, and raise the possibility that similar cases have yet to be discovered in the fasciatus group. Here, I estimate a phylogeny to test the monophyly of the fasciatus group and infer its relationship with other North American Plestiodon using 2537 bp from six mtDNA genes. I use the phylogeny to reconstruct the mode (graduated vs. punctuated) and direction of body size evolution, to map the evolution of two predominant color morphs, and to test whether size and color pattern evolve concertedly. The results show that the morphotypes of the traditional fasciatus group constitute good species, but that the species group is rendered paraphyletic by several geographically overlapping species that deviate from the fasciatus-like ontogeny. Body size evolution has occurred gradually and bi-directionally, and shifts to large body size have been consistently associated with the loss of the striped color pattern during ontogeny. I show that parallelism, a lack of rigorous phylogenetic analysis, and a reliance on shared ontogenetic features for predicting phylogenetic relatedness, has misled the traditional systematics of these lizards, but that general ideas concerning the role of development in their morphological evolution remain supported. I close by proposing that the processes influencing repeated phyletic patterns in the skiltonianus and fasciatus groups represent adherence to an ancestral ground state, and discuss the importance of using phylogenies for the initial characterization of evolutionary changes in development.     

Ontogenetic phenotypic plasticity during the reproductive phase in Arabidopsis thaliana (Brassicaceae)

While phenotypic plasticity has been the focus of much research and debate in the recent ecological and evolutionary literature, the developmental nature of the phenomenon has been mostly overlooked. A developmental perspective must ultimately be an integral part of our understanding of how organisms cope with heterogeneous environments. In this paper I use the rapid cycling Arabidopsis thaliana to address the following questions concerning developmental plasticity. (1) Are there genetic and/or environmental differences in parameters describing ontogenetic trajectories? (2) Is ontogenetic variation produced by differences in genotypes and/or environments for two crucial traits of the reproductive phase of the life cycle, stem elongation and flower production? (3) Is there ontogenetic variability for the correlation between the two characters? I found genetic variation, plasticity, and variation for plasticity affecting at least some of the growth parameters, indicating potential for evolution via heterochronic shifts in ontogenetic trajectories. Within-population differences among families are determined before the onset of the reproductive phase, while among-population variation is the result of divergence during the reproductive phase of the ontogeny. Finally, the ontogenetic profiles of character correlations are very distinct between the ecologically meaningful categories of early- and late-flowering “ecotypes” in this species, and show susceptibility to environmental change.     

Do molecules matter more than morphology? Promises and pitfalls in parasites

Systematics involves resolving both the taxonomy and phylogenetic placement of organisms. We review the advantages and disadvantages of the two kinds of information commonly used for such inferences--morphological and molecular data--as applied to the systematics of metazoan parasites generally, with special attention to the malaria parasites. The problems that potentially confound the use of morphology in parasites include challenges to consistent specimen preservation, plasticity of features depending on hosts or other environmental factors, and morphological convergence. Molecular characters such as DNA sequences present an alternative data source and are particularly useful when not all the parasite's life stages are present or when parasitaemia is low. Nonetheless, molecular data can bring challenges that include troublesome DNA isolation, paralogous gene copies, difficulty in developing molecular markers, and preferential amplification in mixed species infections. Given the differential benefits and shortcomings of both molecular and morphological characters, both should be implemented in parasite taxonomy and phylogenetics.     

Evolutionary theory and systematics: relationships between process and patterns

The relevance of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis to the foundations of taxonomy (the construction of groups, both taxa and phyla) is reexamined. The nondimensional biological species concept, and not the multidimensional, taxonomic, species notion which is based on it, represents a culmination of an evolutionary understanding. It demonstrates how established evolutionary mechanisms acting on populations of sexually reproducing organisms provide the testable ontological basis of the species category. We question the ontology and epistemology of the phylogenetic or evolutionary species concept, and find it to be a fundamentally untenable one. We argue that at best, the phylogenetic species is a taxonomic species notion which is not a theoretical concept, and therefore should not serve as foundation for taxonomic theory in general, phylogenetics, and macroevolutionary reconstruction in particular. Although both evolutionary systematists and cladists are phylogeneticists, the reconstruction of the history of life is fundamentally different in these two approaches. We maintain that all method, including taxonomic ones, must fall out of well corroborated theory. In the case of taxonomic methodology the theoretical base must be evolutionary. The axiomatic assumptions that all phena, living and fossil, must be holophyletic taxa (species, and above), resulting from splitting events, and subsequently that evaluation of evolutionary change must be based on a taxic perspective codified by the Hennig ian taxonomic species notion, are not testable premises. We discuss the relationship between some biologically, and therefore taxonomically, significant patterns in nature, and the process dependence of these patterns. Process-free establishment of deductively tested “genealogies” is a contradiction in terms; it is impossible to “recover” phylogenetic patterns without the investment of causal and processual explanations of characters to establish well tested taxonomic properties of these (such as homologies, apomorphies, synapomorphies, or transformation series). Phylogenies of either characters or of taxa are historical-narrative explanations (H-N Es), based on both inductively formulated hypotheses and tested against objective, empirical evidence. We further discuss why construction of a “genealogy”, the alleged framework for “evolutionary reconstruction”, based on a taxic, cladistic outgroup comparison and a posteriori weighting of characters is circular. We define how the procedure called null-group comparison leads to the noncircular testing of the taxonomic properties of characters against which the group phylogenies must be tested. This is the only valid rooting procedure for either character or taxon evolution. While the Hennig -principle is obviously a sound deduction from the theory of descent, cladistic reconstruction of evolutionary history itself lacks a valid methodology for testing transformation hypotheses of both characters and species. We discuss why the paleontological method is part of comparative biology with a critical time dimension ana why we believe that an “ontogenetic method” is not valid. In our view, a merger of exclusive (causal and interactive, but best described as levels of organization) and inclusive (classificatory) hierarchies has not been accomplished by a taxic scheme of evolution advocated by some. Transformational change by its very nature is not classifiable in an inclusive hierarchy, and therefore no classification can fully reflect the causal and interactive chains of events constituting phylogeny, without ignoring and contradicting large areas of corroborated evolutionary theory. Attempts to equate progressive evolutionary change with taxic schemes by Haeckel were fundamentally flawed. His ideas found 19th century expression in a taxic perception of the evolutionary process (“phylogenesis”), a merger of typology, hierarchic and taxic notions of progress, all rooted in an ontogenetic view of phylogeny. The modern schemes of genealogical hierarchies, based on punctuation and a notion of “species” individuality, have yet to demonstrate that they hold promise beyond the Haeckel ian view of progressive evolution.