Adolf Naef (1883–1949), systematic morphology and phylogenetics

Several authors have highlighted methodological similarities between Naef’s systematic morphology and Hennig’s phylogenetic systematics. Whereas this may indicate an influence of Naef on Hennig, the relevant issues – such as the principle of generality in character analysis and the threefold parallelism of classification, ontogeny and the Fossil Record – reach back beyond Naef and Hennig and were widely discussed in the German systematics literature of the late 19th and early 20th Century. The same is true of conceptual issues, such as the discussion of the principle of monophyly, which was first introduced by Haeckel in 1866 ( Rieppel 2011b , J Zool Syst Evol Res 49 :1). In spite of methodological and conceptual agreements, Naef’s systematic morphology differed fundamentally from Hennig’s phylogenetic systematics. Naef emphasized the role of unbiased observation and the immediate acquaintance of the investigator with the phenomena given in nature as the basis of natural science in general, and of his hierarchy of types in particular. From the hierarchy of types, Naef derived through conceptual‐logical analysis the natural system, which above the species level forms a nested hierarchy of intensionally defined classes, denoted by general names. The historical‐causal interpretation of the hierarchy of types in turn offers insight into the hypothetical reality of phylogeny. Hennig in contrast denied the possibility of theory‐free observation, indeed of assumption‐free science in general, and on that basis put metaphysical issues above epistemology. Tying individuality to spatiotemporal location, historicity and causality, Hennig took not only species (as did Naef) but also supraspecific monophyletic taxa as individuals, denoted by proper names. From the species up, the phylogenetic system thus becomes a nested hierarchy of complex wholes of increasing degrees of complexity. Diagnostic characters of species or higher taxa can then no longer define classes (as in Naef’s natural system) but are thought to indirectly indicate the phylogenetic relations on which alone the phylogenetic system is to be based.     

The Gegenbaur Transformation: a paradigm change in comparative biology

The leading experts in the development of phylogenetic systematics, Walter Zimmermann and Willi Hennig, formulated their research program in opposition to (neo-) idealistic morphology as expounded by authors such as Wilhelm Troll and Adolf Naef. Idealistic morphology was synonymous with systematic morphology for Naef, who wanted it to be strictly kept separate and independent of phylogenetics. Naef conceded, however, that the natural system researched by systematic morphology is to be causally explained by the theory of descent with modification. Naef went on to compile a dictionary that would regulate the translation of the language of systematic morphology into the language of phylogenetics. The switch from idealistic morphology to phylogenetic morphology is paradigmatically exemplified in the two editions (1859, 1870) of Carl Gegenbaur's Grundzüge der vergleichenden Anatomie. This paper traces the development of phylogenetic systematics from Gegenbaur through the work of Adolf Naef to Walter Zimmermann and Willi Hennig. Hennig added to Naef's systematic morphology the dimension of time, which required an ontological replacement: Naef's natural system, a nested hierarchy of intensionally defined sets subject to the membership relation, was replaced by Hennig's phylogenetic system, an enkaptic hierarchy subject to the part-to-whole relation.     

On the difference between mono-, holo-, and paraphyletic groups: a consistent distinction of process and pattern

About 50 years ago, the German entomologist Willi Hennig presented a new approach in biological systematics that he called a phylogenetic systematics. The main difference between his approach and traditional Linnean systematics was that he distinguished two new kinds of groups that he called mono- and paraphyletic groups, and whereof he considered only monophyletic groups to be natural groups. However, almost immediately after publication of his approach in English, some biological systematists commented that his monophyletic groups rather ought to be called holophyletic groups. The comment sparked a heated debate about the definition of the concept 'monophyletic groups', but the debate never reached consensus. In this paper, I claim that the controversy does not concern the definition of the concept monophyletic groups per se , but instead conceptualization of phylogenies (i.e. dichotomously branching processes) in a general sense. I discuss the relation between mono-, holo- and paraphyletic groups, and conclude that Hennig's conceptualization of phylogenies is both inconsistent and empirically wrong, whereas Linné's instead is consistent and correct.  © 2008 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society , 2008, 94 , 217–220.     

From Haeckel to Hennig: the early development of phylogenetics in German-speaking Europe

An outline of the development of phylogenetic thinking and methodology in German literature published between 1862 and 1942 is presented. Central European biologists and palaeontologists of the first post‐Darwinian generation of biologists holding evolutionary views were directly stimulated by Darwin. Members of the second generation, mostly born after 1850, were largely influenced also by colleagues of the first post‐Darwinian generation, mainly by Haeckel. Among them were O. Abel, V. Franz, R. Hertwig, A. Naef, L. Plate, and R. v. Wettstein. Opinions on the relationship between systematics and phylogeny differed considerably. Many authors admitted that phylogeny must be mirrored in systematics but at the same time shared Haeckel's views on classification, which permitted paraphyletic groupings. Particularly Abel and Naef took systematics several steps further, and many important elements of phylogenetic systematics were developed several decades before Hennig. Naef presented a definition of a phylogenetic group that exactly matches Hennig's definition of monophyly. He also formulated a species concept that was implicitly based on reproductive isolation. This was an important presupposition for viewing speciation as the splitting of a stem species into daughter species. However, many authors of the first half of the 20th century repeated old, but established views on phylogenetics, while others overlooked or misunderstood earlier progressive views thus causing slow development of phylogenetic systematics in Central Europe. Its development almost stopped between 1925 and 1950, because of a widespread shift towards typology and extreme idealistic morphology. During that time very few persons such as W. Zimmermann and W. Hennig assembled elements of phylogenetic systematics and combined them with their own thoughts to create a sound theory and methodology.     

Hennigs theorem und die strategie des stammesgeschichtlichen rekonstruierens die agnathen-gnathostomen-beziehung als beispiel

The heavily disputed methodology for the formulation of cladograms advocated by Hennig is subjected to a strict test as far as theoretical consistency and applicability are concerned. It can be convincingly shown that Hennig’s theorem contains indispensible postulates as it requires the establishment of plesiomorphic and apomorphic situations in the process of reconstructing the phylogenetic connections between existing fossil or recent organisms. Hennig’s view that fossil remains cannot by themselves disclose the phylogenetic interrelationships of the organisms and require an assessement of the characters is supported by the model for the evolution of the jaw apparatus in lower vertebrates. The model that is based on the main tenets of an approach for reconstructing phylogenetic transformations provides the key for the evolutionary position of fossil fish groups. In contrast to the logical and theoretical clarity Hennig’s approach does not offer any conclusive arguments as how to discriminate plesiomorphic and apomorphic character states and by which means mono-phyly of an animal group can be ascertained. The shortcomings of Hennig’s methodology are overcome and rectified in the constructivistic approach to phylogeny advocated herein. Furthermore the indispensible aspects of Hennig’s methodology are incorporated in a more general concept of phylogenetic reconstruction which was repeatedly corroborated by attempts to trace the transformation series of several fossil and recent groups of organisms.     

Classification, Convention and Logic

An attempt has been made to establish axiomatically the principles of biological classification. It is shown that if phylogenetic classification is based on the notion of dichotomous origin of new taxa implied in Hennig's theory of cladism then the outcome must be a hierarchy in the form of a dichotomous dendrogram. Since the rules of traditional classification do not lead to this type of "phylogenetic tree" it is concluded that the conventions of ordinary systematics do not permit the erection of a "natural system".     

Phylogenetic Species, Nested Hierarchies, and Character Fixation

Cladistic mechanics and ramifications of various species concepts rooted in phylogenetic theory are explored. Published discussions of the phylogenetic species concept (PSC) have been hampered by persistent misconceptions surrounding its ontology and applicability, and by confusion of various incompatible versions of species concepts claiming to follow from Hennig's (1966), Phylogenetic Systematics, Univ. of Illinois Press, Urbana work. Especially problematic are topology- or tree-based versions of species diagnosis, which render diagnoses dependent on relationships depicted as hierarchically structured regardless of any lack of underlying hierarchy. Because the applicability of concepts such as monophyly, paraphyly, and polyphyly rests ultimately on the underlying hierarchical distribution of characters, representations of tokogenetic or reticulating systems as nested hierarchies are necessarily inaccurate. And since hierarchical representations—even if accurate—of nonrecombining genetic elements need not coincide with the organisms that bear them, tree-based diagnoses are further hampered, except potentially as retrospective tools. The relationship between tree-based species delineations and the criterion of character fixation is explored. Fixation of characters by which one identifies phylogenetic species is further distinguished from the fixation of character state differences, and the implications of that distinction are explored with reference to the interpretation of speciation events. It is demonstrated that character fixation in alternative species need not coincide with the achievement of reciprocal monophyly. While the PSC retains shortcomings, some of the more frequently criticized aspects of the PSC are functions of sampling that are no more problematic than for any basic systematic endeavor.     

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.     

Willi Hennig’s dichotomization of nature

Two formal assumptions implied in Willi Hennig’s “phylogenetic systematics” were repeatedly criticized for not being biologically grounded. The first is that speciation is always dichotomous; the second is that the stem‐species always goes extinct when its lineage splits into two daughter species. This paper traces the theoretical roots of Hennig’s “principle of dichotomy”. While often considered merely a methodological principle, Hennig’s realist perspective required him to ground the “principle of dichotomy” ontologically in speciation. As a methodological principle, the adherence to a strictly dichotomously structured phylogenetic system allowed Hennig to be unequivocal in character analysis and precise in the rendition of phylogenetic relationships. The ontological grounding of the “principle of dichotomy” in speciation remains controversial, however. This has implications for the application of techniques of phylogeny reconstruction to populations of bisexually reproducing organisms (phylogeography). Beyond that, the “principle of dichotomy” has triggered an intensive debate with respect to phylogeny reconstruction at the prokaryote level. © The Willi Hennig Society 2010.     

On concept formation in systematics

In his “Grundzüge einer Theorie der phylogenetischen Systematik”, Hennig (1950 ) cited three philosophers: the leading empiricist Rudolf Carnap, the conventionalist Hugo Dingler, and the somewhat more obscure empiricist Theodor Ziehen. David Hull characterized Hennig's “Grundzüge” as one long argument against idealistic morphology. It will here be argued that Hennig attacked idealistic morphology (synonymous with “systematic” morphology) for its mode of concept formation. Building on Carnap and Ziehen, who both looked back on Ernst Cassirer, Hennig argued that the “generic”, “thing” or “class” concept of traditional nomothetic science must be replaced with Cassirer's “relation concept.” According to Hennig, such “emancipation” of systematics from the Aristotelian “species” concept would also allow transcendence from the distinction of idiographic from nomothetic sciences, thus preserving the unity of science. However, the establishment of relations in the construction of a system of order presupposes entities that can be, or are, related. Relations presuppose relata, which in modern systematics are best conceptualized (at least at the supraspecific level) not as Aristotelian classes, nor as individuals as was argued by Hennig and Ziehen, but as tokens of natural kinds. © The Willi Hennig Society 2006.     

From types to individuals: Hennig’s ontology and the development of phylogenetic systematics

Contemporary phylogenetic systematics was framed, in part, as a response to a resurgent idealistic morphology in the German‐speaking world in the first half of the 20th century. There were also conceptual and methodological challenges from Anglo‐American researchers who were sceptical about whether a phylogenetic approach to systematics could be made to work. This paper describes these challenges as a way of providing context for some ontological innovations made first by Walter Zimmermann and then by Willi Hennig. The principal argument of this paper is that what has become known as the individuality thesis played a much more important role in the conceptual foundations of Hennig’s version of phylogenetic systematics than has been widely appreciated. Understanding Hennig’s ontology illuminates his responses to objections to phylogenetic systematics from both sides of the Atlantic and sheds substantial light on the extinction part of the dichotomy rule. Although many have taken Hennig’s claim that parent species go extinct at speciation to be an arbitrary and biologically unrealistic rule, extinction of the parent follows directly from the way Hennig understands species and how they are individuated. © The Willi Hennig Society 2011.     

Cladistic analysis of the Sepsidae (Cyclorrhapha: Diptera) based on a comparative scanning electron microscopic study of larvae

The result of a phylogenetic analysis of the Sepsidae based on larval characters is presented. It is shown that cyclorrhaphan larvae can be as rich a source of characters as Nematocera immatures when investigated using an SEM. The cladistic analysis comprised fifty-two species in sixteen genera of the Sepsidae and five outgroup species and used fifty-seven morphological characters. It found seven parsimonious trees which only differed with respect to the arrangement of some species within the genus Themira. The basal dichotomies of the phylogenetic trees are particularly well supported, indicating the conservative nature of larval characters. Orygma is confirmed as the sister group of all the remaining sepsids, the Sepsinae. There is good larval evidence that Ortalischema is the sister group of all remaining Sepsinae and that the Toxopodinae constitute an early radiation within the Sepsidae. According to larval data, some genera are paraphyletic ( Themira, Palaeosepsis ), but adult characters appear to contradict these findings. Among the traditionally recognized higher taxa within the Sepsidae, Hennig's Themira species-group and Steysbal's Sepsini have to be rejected as polyphyletic. However, Hennig's Sepsis species-group is confirmed as monophyletic and will probably constitute one major element of a future phylogenetic system of the Sepsidae. States of the strongly modified fore-legs of some adult sepsid males are mapped onto the phylogenetic tree, largely confirming Šulc's ideas about the evolution of these features. The origin and evolution of male sternites with brushes and a gland on the tibiae of the males ('osmeterium') are discussed. Whereas adult characters point to a sister-group relationship between the Sepsidae and the Ropalomeridae, larval characters appear to indicate a sister-group relationship between the Coelopidae and the Sepsidae. The evidence for both hypotheses is critically evaluated.     

Transformation Series as an Ideographic Character Concept

An ideographic concept of character is indispensable to phylogenetic inference. Hennig proposed that characters be conceptualized as “transformation series”, a proposal that is firmly grounded in evolutionary theory and consistent with the method of inferring transformation events as evidence of phylogenetic propinquity. Nevertheless, that concept is usually overlooked or rejected in favor of others based on similarity. Here we explicate Hennig's definition of character as an ideographic concept in the science of phylogenetic systematics. As transformation series, characters are historical individuals akin to species and clades. As such, the related concept of homology refers to a historical identity relation and is not equivalent to or synonymous with synapomorphy. The distinction between primary and secondary homology is dismissed on the grounds that it conflates the concept of homology with the discovery operations used to detect instances of that concept. Although concern for character dependence is generally valid, it is often misplaced, focusing on functional or developmental correlation (both of which are irrelevant in phylogenetic systematics but may be valid in other fields) instead of the historical/transformational independence relevant to phylogenetic inference. As an ideographic science concerned with concrete objects and events (i.e. individuals), intensionally and extensionally defined properties are inconsistent with the individuation of characters for phylogenetic analysis, the utility of properties being limited to communicating results and facilitating future rounds of testing.     

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

Species are groups of organisms, marked out by reproductive (replicative) properties. Monophyletic taxa are groups of species, marked out by synapomorphies. In Nelson’s analysis, monophyly and synapomorphy are identical relations. Monophyly and synapomorphy, however, are not equivalent relations. Monophyly is epistemically not accessible, whereas synapomorphy is epistemically accessible through character analysis. Monophyly originates with speciation, the two sister‐species that come into being through the splitting of the ancestral species lineage forming a monophyletic taxon at the lowest level of inclusiveness. Synapomorphy provides the empirical evidence for monophyly, inferred from character analysis in the context of a three‐taxon statement. If synapomorphy and monophyly were equivalent, phylogenetic systematists should find a single tree, instead of multiple equally parsimonious trees. Understanding synapomorphy as the relevant evidence for phylogenetic inference reveals a category mistake in contemporary phylogenetics: the treatment of morphological characters mapped onto molecular trees as synapomorphies and homoplasies. The mapping of morphological characters onto nodes of a molecular tree results in an empirically empty procedure for synapomorphy discovery. Morphological synapomorphies and homoplasies can only be discovered by morphological and combined analyses. The use of morphology in phylogenetic inference in general is defended by examples from Laurales and Squamata in particular. To make empirical evidence scientifically relevant in order to search for concordance, or dis‐concordance, of phylogenetic signal, is certainly more fruitful for phylogenetics than the uncritical mapping of morphological traits on a molecular scaffold. © The Willi Hennig Society 2010.     

Die evolution der pantherkatzen modell zur überprüfung der brauchbarkeit der hennigschen prinzipien der phylogenetischen systematik für wirbeltierpaläontologische studien

The species and genus group of pantherine cats (Panthera, Uncia, Neofelis) has been studied in the fields of zoology, palaeontology and biogeography as far as allowing a total mosaic pattern of its evolution, which, though it is incomplete, is free of contradictions. Thus it is suited as a model for checking the applicability of Hennig’s phyletical concepts to pure palaeontological studies in vertebrates. By this it results that the principles of the phylogenetic systematics are unquestionably useful due to their terminological clearness, but are not sufficient alone for the reconstruction of evolutionary processes. Dichotomy or radiation in evolutionary splitting of a species should not be a question of principle.     

Phylogenetic algorithms and the evolution of species communities in forest fragments

In forest fragmentation studies, low specific richness in small fragments and community nestedness are usually considered to result from species loss. However, except in the case of fragmentation experiments, these studies cannot distinguish between original low richness and secondary species loss, or between original high richness and secondary colonizations in fragments. To distinguish between these possibilities is a matter of historical inference for which phylogenetic algorithms are designed. The methods of phylogenetic analysis, and especially parsimony analysis, can be used to find a tree of relationships between communities from different forest fragments, taking the presence or absence of species among different communities as characters. Parsimony analysis searches if species subsets can be classified in a nested hierarchy, and also establishes how the communities evolved, polarizing species changes into either extinctions or colonizations. By re‐analyzing two classical studies in this new and powerful way, we demonstrate that the differences between fragments and large continuous forests cannot be attributed to species loss in all cases, contrary to expectations from models. © The Willi Hennig Society 2005.     

How to Read a Phylogenetic Tree

It has been over 50 years since Willi Hennig proposed a new method for determining genealogical relationships among species, which he called phylogenetic systematics. Many people, however, still approach the method warily, worried that they will have to grapple with an overwhelming number of new terms and concepts. In fact, reading and understanding phylogenetic trees is really not difficult at all. You only need to learn three new words, autapomorphy, synapomorphy, and plesiomorphy. All of the other concepts (e.g., ancestors, monophyletic groups, paraphyletic groups) are familiar ones that were already part of Darwinian evolution before Hennig arrived on the scene.     

Grundsätze der phylogenetischen Systematik (Eine praxisorientierte Übersicht)

The essential elements of phylogenetic systematics in the sense of Hennig are emphasized: The search for synapomorphies based on a special method of comparative morphology, and the aim of an exclusive use of synapomorphies for kinship proof and the basis of systematics. Special aspects of comparative morphology are: “Directed comparisons” steady reciprocal reflection between comparative morphological result and the system methodical efforts for the realization of distinctive details, comprehensive documentation and functional interpretation. This is equally true for recent and fossil forms. Most suitable for the method (in the sense defined above) are groups with numerous differentiated morphological characters, which can also be preserved in the fossil state. The less this is the case the less is the chance for achieving necessary numbers of well proven synapomorphies. Even so, it is not permitted—for those who want to perform phylogenetic systematics in the sense of Hennig—to use convergences, parallelisms or symplesiomorphies in the sense of “synapomorphies” as phylogenetic arguments for kinship relations. Numerous examples and diagrams demonstrate the methodological proceeding, and differences towards other methods of phylogenetical reconstruction and interpretation. Special attention is paid to direct and indirect conclusions drawn from fossils: Time of origin of characters, stem groups and *groups; predictions concerning the appearance (set of characters) of fossils and simultaneous existence of “neighbour groups” (sister groups, and more distantly related taxa).