A Review on Cladistics

The theoretical bases and approaches of cladistics and some specific problems that, directly or indirectly, rely on cladistic analysis for their revolution, are outlined and discussed. Seven sections comprise this paper: a ) the philosophical foundation of cladistics; b) the theoretical tenets of cladistics; c) the operational procedure of cladisties; d) three schools of classification; e) cladistics and biogeography; f) cladistics and hybrid recognition; and g) is cladistic systematics a scientific theory ? Considerations of scientific methodology involve philosophical questions. From this point, Popper'falsificationism serves a good foundation. Popper emphasizes that all scientific knowledge is hypothetical-deductive, consisting of general statements (theories) that can never be confirmed or verified but only falsified. The theories, that can be tested most effectively, are preferable. Cladistics, aiming at generating accurately expressed and strictly testable systematic hypotheses, is well compatible with this requirement. The principles central to the cladistic theory and methodology are: the Principle of Synapomorphy; the Principle of Strict Monophyly; and the Principle of Strict Parsimony. The first requires forming nested groups by nesting statements about shared evolutionary novelties (synapomorphy) postulated from observed similarities and is the primary one. The second is mainly methodological, subject to modification and compromise. The principle of strict parsimony specifies the most preferable hypothesis (namely the one exhibiting the most congruence in the synapomorphy pattern). The operational procedure that might be followed in formulating and testing hypotheses of the synapomorphy pattern (the cladogram itself) consists of five steps. The erections of monophyletic groups, to a greater or lesser extent, rely on the hypothesis of the previous systematic studies and is the starting point for cladistic analysis. Character analysis, which focuses on character distribution and determination of the polarities, decides the reconstructed phylogeny. A detailed discussion on the methodological principles for identifying transformation sequence is presented. Many algorithms have been designated to infer the cladogram, and are basically of parsimony techniques and Compatibility techiques. The thus yielded cladograms, with their expected pattern of congruent synapomorphies, are tests of a particular hypothesis of synapomorphy and reciprocally synapomorphies are tests of cladistic hypothesis (cladogram). Such reciprocity is a strong stimulus to profound understanding on phylogenetic process and phyletic relationships. The cladogram and the Linnaean classification have the identical logic structure and the set-membership of the two can be made isomorphic. There are three principal approaches to biological classification : cladistics, phenetics and evolutionary classification. Cladistics is the determination of the branching pattern of evolution, and in the context of classification, the development of nested sets based on cladograms. Phenetics is the classification by overall similarities, without regard to evolutionary considerations. Evolutionary classification attempts to consider all meaningful aspects of phylogeny and to use these for making a classification. The last approach has been done intuitively, without explicit methods. An enumeration of their differences and a discussion on their relative merits are presented. Three theoretical approaches have been proposed for interpreting biogeographical history: the phylogenetic theory of biogeography, classical evolutionary biogeography and vicariance biogeography. The former two show some similarities in that they usually look upon biogeography in terms of centers of origin and dispersal from the centers. But the first puts a strong emphasis on the construction of hypotheses about the phylogenetic relationships of the organisms in question and the subsequent inference of their geographic relationships; the second advocates a theory which does not have a precise deductive link with phylogenetic construction and often results in wildly narratative-type hypotheses. The vicariance approach de-emphasizes the concepts of centers of origin and dispersal and attempts to analyse distribution patterns in terms of subdivision (vicariance) of ancestral biotas. The development of the theory of plate tectonics and its universal acceptance enormously stimulate biogeographers to look at the world's continents and oceans from a mobilist point, which, along with the establishment of the rigorous tool of the phylogenetic analysis (cladistics), profoundly reshapes the above three theories. Hybridization and polyploidy are outstanding features of many plant groups. But hybridization, or reticulate evolution, is inconsistent with the basic concepts of cladistics which is an ever-branching pattern. Cladists have suggested several approaches. One of them analyses all the taxa by a standard cladistic procedure and closely examines the cladograms for polytomies and character conflicts that may indicate possible hybrids. Such generated hypothesis of hybridization can be corroborated or falsified by other forms of data, such as distribution, polyploidy, karyotype and pollen fertility. There are three criteria to justify a theory to be scientific: a) whether it is a theory composed of hypotheses strictly falsifiable; b) whether it has predictive effect; and c) whether it has a explanatory value. Cladistic systematics aims at generating cladograms, which are hypotheses of the nested pattern of synapomorphy, phylogenetic process and phyletic relationships, susceptible to testing by postulated synapomorphies. The predictive effect of systematics relies on the acceptance of hypotheses of congruence about the correlation of characters, which has been well founded. For non-systematic biologists, phylogenetic classification can be used as axiom to form a preliminary and fundamental explanation.     

Revival of forgotten characters and modern imaging techniques help to produce a robust phylogeny of the Diplopoda (Arthropoda,Myriapoda)

The external and internal anatomy of millipedes (Diplopoda) is poorly known compared to some of the other myriapod and arthropod groups. Due to both language barriers, which hindered the assessment of the character-rich older literature, and non-phylogenetic thinking, our knowledge of morphological characters useful for phylogenetic work diminished over the last decades. Here, a new character matrix with 64 characters, mainly derived from old literature data, is used to reconstruct a phylogeny of Diplopoda. As a tool to further our knowledge about the morphology of the different millipede orders, we show how micro-computer tomography (μCT) can be used to assess and illustrate specific parts of the Platydesmida. With the advent of μCT it is now possible to analyse many taxa and characters in a comparatively short time. A focus is put on potential phylogenetically useful characters. Our results support a Verhoeffian classification of the Diplopoda: Polyxenida + Chilognatha. Pentazonia are the sistergroup to the Helminthomorpha. Colobognatha form the sistergroup to Eugnatha, the latter split into monophyletic Juliformia and Polydesmida + Nematophora.     

Transforming Our Thinking about Transitional Forms

A common misconception of evolutionary biology is that it involves a search for “missing links” in the history of life. Relying on this misconception, antievolutionists present the supposed absence of transitional forms from the fossil record as evidence against evolution. Students of biology need to understand that evolution is a branching process, paleontologists do not expect to find “missing links,” and evolutionary research uses independent lines of evidence to test hypotheses and make conclusions about the history of life. Teachers can facilitate such learning by incorporating cladistics and tree-thinking into the curriculum and using evograms to focus on important evolutionary transitions.     

A question of conflict: Three‐item and standard parsimony compared

A simple example of conflicting data, relevant to comparison between standard and three‐item parsimony analysis, is two characters (nodes, trees) differently relating four taxa: (AB)CD and A(BCD). This conflict is differently resolved by standard and three‐item analysis, which with fractional weighting yields the unique result (AB)(CD). There is reason to consider this result as the more accurate resolution of these conflicting data.     

Chloroplast DNA phylogeny of subtribe Dendrobiinae (Orchidaceae): Insights from a combined analysis based onrbcL sequences and restriction site variation

Phylogenetic analyses using two chloroplast DNA data sets, derived from variation of the ribulose-bisphosphate carboxylase gene (rbcL) and restriction sites, were performed to examine relationships among 13 taxa in subtribe Dendrobiinae, one of the most taxonomically complicated groups in Orchidaceae, and its putative sister groups. Owing to a limited number of informative substitutions, therbcL data set did not provide conclusive evidence in itself. The data set combiningrbcL and restriction site mutations, however, provided the following insights: (1)Pseuderia belongs with tribe Podochileae rather than tribe Dendrobieae. (2) Subtribe Dendrobiinae is monophyletic ifPseuderia is excluded. (3) ExcludingPseuderia, Dendrobiinae comprises three major clades: Clade 1 (Dendrobium sectionSpatulata, Cadetia, Diplocaulobium, andFlickingeria); Clade 2 (Dendrobium sectionsDendrobium andCallista); and Clade 3 (Epigeneium). (4)Epigeneium diverged early from the lineage including Clades 1 and 2. (5) Relative toCadetia, Diplocaulobium, andFlickingeria, Dendrobium is shown to be para-/polyphyletic. (6)Diplocaulobium andFlickingeria constitute a monophyletic clade, from which cladeDendrobium sectionSpatulata andCadetia form succesive sister groups. Among these results, (1) and (5) are especially stable in view of the congruence between the separate and combined analyses as well as robust internal support.     

Cladistic analysis of 5S rRNA and 16S rRNA secondary and primary structure—The evolution of eukaryotes and their relation to archaebacteria

Summary The secondary structure of 5S rRNA has been elucidated by a cladistic analysis resulting in minimal models for eukaryotes, eubacteria, and halophilic-methanogenic archaebacteria, as well as for an ur-5S rRNA. This ancestor of all present-day 5S rRNA molecules is compared with an ur-tRNA and can be fitted into a tRNA-like structure allowing tertiary-structure interactions at the equivalent positions. A phylogenetic analysis of eukaryotic 5SrRNA and 16S rRNA sequences confirms particular monophyletic taxa: rhodophytes (red algae), chlorobionts (green algae and plants), metazoans (multicellular animals), euglenozoans (euglenids and trypanosomatids), a group of zygomycetes (excluding Kickxellales), a group of ascomycetes (excluding Protomycetales), two distinct groups of basidiomycetes, and a group consisting of phaeophyceans (brown algae) and oomycetes (water molds). The Euglenozoa show a distinct relation to the Eumycota (true fungi) and Metazoa. An analysis of archaebacterial sequences substantiates the paraphyletic nature of this third urkingdom defining the eubacteria as a sister group of the halophile-methanogens and defining the eukaryotes as a sister group of a particular lineage of the eocytes/sulfur-dependents. The latter fact implies that even the eocytes/sulfur-dependent archaebacteria are paraphyletic.Presented at the FEBS Symposium on Genome Organization and Evolution, held in Crete, Greece, September 1–5, 1986Dedicated to the memory of Erik Huysmans who died on July 8, 1986, at the age of 29.     

Systematic relationships of theLactoridaceae,an endemic family of the Juan Fernandez Islands,Chile

The systematic relationships ofLactoridaceae are problematical, with alternative assignments toMagnoliales, Laurales, andPiperales. Phenetic analyses suggest thatLactoridaceae are best accomodated withinMagnoliales and are most closely related toAnnonaceae. Cladistic analyses indicate that the family is a relatively derived member of theMagnoliales, with affinities toAnnonaceae, Eupomatiaceae, Himantandraceae, andMyristicaceae. These analyses together with fossil pollen data are used to interpret the phylogeny ofLactoridaceae and its relatives.     

Biometrical studies upon hominoid teeth: the coefficient of variation, sexual dimorphism and questions of phylogenetic relationship

Sexual dimorphism as a function of variation in hominoid tooth metrics has been investigated for four groups of taxa: Recent great apes (two subfamilies), Dryopiths (one subfamily), Ramapiths (one subfamily) and hominids (one family). Gorilla, and to a lesser extent Pan, appear characterized by very high levels of sexual dimorphism and meet several criteria for statistical outliers. Recent great apes are the only group exhibiting consistently high levels of sexual dimorphism. Ramapiths are the only group characterized by low levels of sexual dimorphism and their relative canine length is most similar to Dryopiths. Both Dryopiths and hominids contain taxa with low and intermediate levels of sexual dimorphism. The Gingerich and Shoeninger hypothesis relating coefficients of variation to occlusal complexity is supported. Non-parametric statistics suggest that homogeneity of coefficient of variation profiles over most of the tooth row is characteristic of only the Dryopiths and a composite data set composed of the Dryopith plus Ramapith tooth measurements. Oxnard's model for the multifactorial basis of multiple sexual dimorphisms is also supported. The Dryopith and hominid patterns of sexual dimorphism are similar, an observation that suggests phylogenetic relationship. At the taxonomic level of subfamily or family, sexual dimorphism is a character of cladistic usefulness and possible phylogenetic valence. Assuming that breeding system and sexual dimorphism are functional correlates as many workers suggest, then Ramapithecus sp. China, Sivapithecus indicus and possibly Australopithecus boisei are good candidates for having possessed monogamous breeding/social structures. All Dryopith taxa, S. sivalensis, Sivapithecus sp. China, A. afarensis, Homo habilis and H. erectus emerge as the best candidates for having possessed a polygynous breeding/social structure. No biometrical affinities of Ramapiths with hominids can be demonstrated and some phylogenetic relationship with Dryopiths is suggested. Kay's interpretation of Ramapith sexual dimorphism and taxonomic affinity is not supported. The lack of control over temporal and geographic range variation is discussed and the loose association of these variables with differences in tooth morphology is noted. The high heritability of tooth size also suggests that assignment of "high" or "low" index values to extinct taxa as a measure that describes evolving clades at discrete points in evolutionary time is appropriate.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)     

Chemotaxonomic studies ofAsplenium sect.Hymenasplenium (Aspleniaceae)

We previously isolated and characterized a new free amino acid withd-configuration at the α-carbon,trans-3, 4-dehydro-d-2-aminopimelic acid and its related amino acids,d-2-aminopimelic acid and 4-hydroxy-l-2-aminopimelic acid fromAsplenium unilaterale. In this paper, we report that the biosynthetic relationshps among these three amino acids were studied using¹⁴C-and³H-labeled compounds as tracers. Glutamate and aspartate were shown to be good precursors and it was suggested that 4-hydroxy-l-2-aminopimelic acid is biosynthesized first and the twod-amino acids are derived from it. Furthermore, the distribution patterns of these non-protein amino acids inAsplenium sect.Hymenasplenium were examined in detail and they were evaluated by their biosynthetic pathway. Morphological characters especially on their rhizomes were also examined and their character phylogeny was determined by outgroup comparison. Taking all the characters available into account, the phylogenetic relationship among 7 species ofAsplenium sect.Hymenasplenium in Japan and Taiwan is discussed by the transformed cladistic method.     

Cladogenesis and anagenesis: a confusion of synapomorphies

Much cladistic theory is flawed because it confuses two temporal sequences: 1. cladogenetic (branching) chronology; 2. anagenetic (primitive-advanced) polarity. The first is largely inherent and exposed by a straigram; the second requires an independent polarisation of the changes subsequent to cladogenetic branchings. Failure to consistently distinguish between these always causes confusion, but destroys cladistic theory, because plesiomorphy and apomorphy refer to anagenesis, and autapomorphy and synapomorphy refer to cladogenetis. They cannot, however, be identified wholly independently, because cladogenetic chronology establishes anagenetic polarity by out-grouping, under limited conditions; and anagenetic polarity establishes cladogenetic chronology in multiple cladistic events. The principle ‘common characters are primitive’ is more accurately expressed as ‘characters of greater s read are cladogenetically earlier', and establishes cladogenetic relationships, never anagenetic polarity as usually thought. The full temporal analysis of biological patterns, therefore, involves eight stages: 1. Homologue identification; 2. Homolostrata delimitation and definition; 3. Stratigram formation; 4. Cladogenetic sequencing; 5. Anagenetic polarity determination (chronogramy); 6. Cladogenetic and anagenetic co-analysis; 7. Cladogram construction; 8. Phylogenetic interpretation.