Supraspecific taxa as terminals in cladistic analysis: implicit assumptions of monophyly and a comparison of methods

The use of supraspecific terminal taxa to represent groups of species in phylogenetic analyses can result in changes to inferred relationships as compared to a complete species level analysis. These changes in topology result from interactions among (1) the cladistic status of the supraspecific taxa; (2) the method used to represent the taxa as single terminals, and (3) incongruence in the data set. We examine the effects of using supraspecific terminal taxa using a parallel analysis of hypothetical examples and an actual data matrix for the true seals (Mammalia: Phocidae). Incongruence among characters can produce changes in topology by shifting the ‘balance of power’ among groups of characters when supraspecific taxa are represented as single terminals. In the absence of homoplasy, the correct topology is maintained. Of the three methods for representing supraspecific taxa, the ‘ancestral’ method, which explicidy infers the common ancestor of the group corresponding to the taxon, performed the best, always maintaining the correct topology when monophyletic taxa were represented. This agrees with theoretical predictions. The ‘democratic’ and ‘exemplar’ methods, which represent the higher level taxon through a survey of all or one of its extant constituent species, respectively, were not as effective in maintaining the correct topology. Although both occasionally provided correct answers, their occurrences were largely unpredictable. The success of the exemplar method varies with the species selected. The simultaneous representation of two or more higher level taxa produced interactive effects where the resultant topology included different clades than when the taxa were collapsed individually. Interactive effects occurred with all three methods, albeit to a lesser degree for the ancestral method. Changes in topology were observed regardless of whether the higher group was monophyletic or not, but were more prevalent when it was paraphyletic. Unfortunately, there does not seem to be a reliable way to determine when a paraphyletic group has been included in the analysis (e.g. through bootstrap values or indices measuring homoplasy). The implications of these findings for phylogenetic analyses of molecular data are also discussed.     

Aphyly: identifying the flotsam and jetsam of systematics

Many taxon names in any classification will be composed of taxa that have yet to be demonstrated as monophyletic, that is, characterized by synapomorphies. Such taxa might be called aphyletic, the flotsam and jetsam in systematics, simply meaning they require taxonomic revision. The term aphyly is, however, the same as, if not identical to, Hennig's “Restkörper” and Bernardi's merophyly. None of these terms gained common usage. We outline Hennig's use of “Restkörper” and Bernardi's use of merophyly and compare it to aphyly. In our view, application of aphyly would avoid the oft made assumption that when a monophyletic group is discovered from within an already known and named taxon, then the species left behind are rendered paraphyletic. By identifying the flotsam and jetsam in systematics, we can focus on taxa in need of attention and avoid making phylogenetic faux pas with respect to their phylogenetic status.     

Ecological integrity of supraspecific taxa and the arctic biota

Some specific features of the development of concepts about integrity (systemic organization) of supraspecific taxa are considered. Several forms of integrity can be distinguished: taxonomic, or genealogical; evolutionary (considering a taxon as a developing system); ecological, or eco-adaptive (manifestation of the properties of a united system in the course of exploring the various conditions and types of environment by the phyletically specified biota). Taxa of different level “behave” as whole units or blocks, forming structural parts of the cenotic and biotic forms of life. The properties of integrity, systemic organization of supraspecific taxa can be displayed by analysis of changes in the structural parameters of the biota related to latitudinal gradients of climatic factors, in phenomena of individualistic distribution, ecological substitution (vicariance) of taxa, and preservation of their ecological functions (adaptive zone) despite the reduced species diversity. The variants of adaptive exploration of high-latitude landscape-zonal conditions are considered using examples from the Arctic flora and fauna.     

Phylogenetic analysis of phenotypic characters of Tunicata supports basal Appendicularia and monophyletic Ascidiacea

With approximately 3000 marine species, Tunicata represents the most disparate subtaxon of Chordata. Molecular phylogenetic studies support Tunicata as sister taxon to Craniota, rendering it pivotal to understanding craniate evolution. Although successively more molecular data have become available to resolve internal tunicate phylogenetic relationships, phenotypic data have not been utilized consistently. Herein these shortcomings are addressed by cladistically analyzing 117 phenotypic characters for 49 tunicate species comprising all higher tunicate taxa, and five craniate and cephalochordate outgroup species. In addition, a combined analysis of the phenotypic characters with 18S rDNA-sequence data is performed in 32 OTUs. The analysis of the combined data is congruent with published molecular analyses. Successively up-weighting phenotypic characters indicates that phenotypic data contribute disproportionally more to the resulting phylogenetic hypothesis. The strict consensus tree from the analysis of the phenotypic characters as well as the single most parsimonious tree found in the analysis of the combined dataset recover monophyletic Appendicularia as sister taxon to the remaining tunicate taxa. Thus, both datasets support the hypothesis that the last common ancestor of Tunicata was free-living and that ascidian sessility is a derived trait within Tunicata. “Thaliacea” is found to be paraphyletic with Pyrosomatida as sister taxon to monophyletic Ascidiacea and the relationship between Doliolida and Salpida is unresolved in the analysis of morphological characters; however, the analysis of the combined data reconstructs Thaliacea as monophyletic nested within paraphyletic “Ascidiacea”. Therefore, both datasets differ in the interpretation of the evolution of the complex holoplanktonic life history of thaliacean taxa. According to the phenotypic data, this evolution occurred in the plankton, whereas from the combined dataset a secondary transition into the plankton from a sessile ascidian is inferred. Besides these major differences, both analyses are in accord on many phylogenetic groupings, although both phylogenetic reconstructions invoke a high degree of homoplasy. In conclusion, this study represents the first serious attempt to utilize the potential phylogenetic information present in phenotypic characters to elucidate the inter-relationships of this diverse marine taxon in a consistent cladistic framework.     

SHORT NOTES

Bock, W. 2000. Heuristics in systematics. Ostrich 71 (1 &; 2): 41–44.

Avian systematics is not only part of the science of ornithology, but serves heuristically as a foundation for many other analyses in ornithology. Systematics can be divided roughly into two major areas, namely species-level analyses and supraspecific classification. Of greatest significance is the distinction between provisional classifications and standard sequences, the latter are based on widely accepted classifications and have major useful functions such as the arrangement of taxa in handbooks, check-lists, and museum collections. The species concept is part of evolutionary theory, not systematics, and applies to contemporaneous groups of individual organisms. Clear distinctions separate the species concept, the species category, the species taxon, and the phyletic lineage—all usually designated as the “species”. The frequent practice of recognising all distinctive allopatric forms as separate species taxa results in two discrete classes of species taxa which largely destroys their usefulness for other biological analyses, including conservation efforts.     

Paraphyly,ancestors, and the goals of taxonomy: A botanical defense of cladism

Cronquist (1987) criticizes cladism for its rejection of paraphyletic groups, which he would retain if he feels they are “conceptually useful.” We argue that paraphyletic higher taxa are artificial classes created by taxonomists who wish to emphasize particular characters or phenetic “gaps,” and that formal recognition of such taxa conveys a misleading picture of common ancestry and character evolution. In our view, classifications should accurately reflect the nested hierarchy of monophyletic groups that is the natural outcome of the evolutionary process. Such systems facilitate the study of evolution and provide an efficient summary of character distributions. Paraphyletic groups, such as “prokaryotes,” “green algae,” “bryophytes,” and “gymnosperms,” should be abandoned, as continued recognition of such groups will only serve to retard progress in understanding evolution. Contrary to Cronquist’s (1987) assertions, cladistic theory is not at odds with standard views on speciation and the existence of ancestors. Groups of interbreeding organisms can continue to exist after giving rise to descendant species, and there are several ways in which such groups, whether extant or extinct, can be incorporated into cladistic classification. In contrast, paraphyletic higher taxa are neither cohesive (integrated by gene flow) nor whole, do not serve as ancestors, and are unacceptable in the phylogenetic system. Fossils may be of great value in assessing phylogenetic relationships and are readily accommodated in cladistic classification. Cladistic studies are helping to answer major questions about plant evolution, and we anticipate increased efforts to develop a truly phylogenetic system.     

Substructure of the axoneme of pterygote insect spermatozoa: Phylogenetic considerations

Spermatozoa from a great number of insect species were fixed in a tannic acid-containing fixative and the ultrastructure of the flagellar axoneme was examined in a search for apomorphies. Most of the examined species, representing a majority of insect orders. have accessory tubules outside the axoneme (hence a 9 + 9 + 2 pattern), and these consist of 16 protofilaments. Some important apomorphies concern the number of protofilaments in the accessory tubules: 13 (plus 7 inner elements) in Ephemeroptera, 13 in the (elliptic) tubules of Psocoptera + Anoplura + Mallophaga (thus a synapomorphy), 13 in Tipulidae + Brachycera, 15 in the dipteran families Dixidae + Chironomidae (with a 9 + 9 + 2 axoneme) and Culicidae + Bibionidae (with a 9 + 9 + “1” axoneme), 17 in Phasmatodea, and 17–20 in Trichoptera. Other apomorphies concern the appearance of the so-called intertubular material outside the microtubular doublets, the appearance of the interior of the various microtubules, and the loss, in some taxa, of outer or inner dynein arms of both dynein arms. In some cases, the flagellum is completely abnormal; the sperm tail of Thysanoptera, for example, consists of 27 elements of 3 different kinds. The different taxa within orders Diptera and Trichoptera have sperm tail axonemes of different appearances, where those from other orders have a rather uniform appearance. The conclusions that can be drawn from this spermatological study, generally agree with data from classical studies, except with some variations, in some cases.     

Ernst Haeckel (1834–1919) and the monophyly of life

Ernst Haeckel, who first introduced the term ‘monophyly’ into the biological literature, has in the past been appealed to in adjudication of the modern use of that concept. A contextual analysis of his writings reveals an inconsistent use of the term ‘monophyly’ by Haeckel. Morphological phylogeny was decoupled in Haeckel’s thinking from the evolutionary history of taxa. Monophyly could mean the derivation of one taxon from another, ancestral one, where these taxa could be species or of supraspecific rank. Monophyly could also mean the phylogenetic differentiation of a diversity of organismal ‘forms’ (morphologies) from a common primitive ‘form’ (morphological stage). And finally, monophyly, as also polyphyly, could apply to the origin of specific anatomical structures, in which case the monophyly/polyphyly of anatomical structures needed not to correlate with the monophyly/polyphyly of the taxon characterized by these structures. With respect to the issue of the unity and reality of monophyletic taxa, Haeckel’s writings again are indeterminate as is his stance on the monophyletic origin of life.     

Least-inclusive taxonomic unit: a new taxonomic concept for biology

Phylogenetic taxonomy has been introduced as a replacement for the Linnaean system. It differs from traditional nomenclature in defining taxon names with reference to phylogenetic trees and in not employing ranks for supraspecific taxa. However, 'species' are currently kept distinct. Within a system of phylogenetic taxonomy we believe that taxon names should refer to monophyletic groups only and that species should not be recognized as taxa. To distinguish the smallest identified taxa, we here introduce the least-inclusive taxonomic unit (LITU), which are differentiated from more inclusive taxa by initial lower-case letters. LITUs imply nothing absolute about inclusiveness, only that subdivisions are not presently recognized.     

Impact of increased character sampling on the phylogeny of Cetartiodactyla (Mammalia): combined analysis including fossils

The phylogenetic position of Cetacea (whales, dolphins and porpoises) is an important exemplar problem for combined data parsimony analyses because the clade is ancient and includes many well‐known and relatively complete fossil species. We combined data for 71 terminal taxa (43 extinct/28 extant) to test where Cetacea fits within Cetartiodactyla, and where various fossil hoofed mammals (e.g., ?entelodonts, “?anthracotheriids” and ?mesonychians) are positioned. We scored 635 phenotypic characters (osteology, dentition, soft tissue, behavior), approximately three times the number of characters in the last major analysis of this clade, and combined these with > 40 000 molecular characters, including new data from 10 genes. The analysis supported a topology consistent with the majority of recently published molecular studies. Cetacea was the extant sister taxon of Hippopotamidae, followed successively by Ruminantia, Suina and Camelidae. Several extinct taxa were phylogenetically unstable, upsetting resolution of the strict consensus and limiting branch support, but the positions of several key fossils were consistently resolved. The wholly extinct ?Mesonychia was more closely related to Cetacea than was any “artiodactylan.”“?Anthracotheriids” were paraphyletic, and, with the exception of one species, were more closely related to Hippopotamidae than to any other living taxon. The total evidence analysis overturned a highly nested position for Moschus supported by molecular data alone. The character partition that could be scored for the fossil taxa (osteological and dental characters) included more informative characters than most molecular partitions in our analysis, and had the fewest missing data. The osteological–dental data alone, however, did not support inclusion of cetaceans within crown “Artiodactyla.” Recently discovered ankle bones from fossil whales reinforced the monophyly of Cetartiodactyla but provided no particular evidence of derived similarities between hippopotamids and fossil cetaceans that were not shared with other “artiodactylans”. © The Willi Hennig Society 2007.     

New Fabriciola species (Polychaeta, Sabellidae, Fabriciinae) from the eastern Atlantic, with a description of sperm and spermathecal ultrastructure

New species in the genus Fabriciola Friedrich are described. Fabriciola is defined by a single synapomorphy, the presence of non-vascularized, ventral filamentous appendages. Otherwise the genus is variable, with differences among species in chaetae, eyes, and peristomial organization. The new species, Fabriciola flammula, F. liguronis and F. parvus , reflect this heterogeneity. Fabriciola liguronis has spermathecae in the radiolar crown of females, the first record of these structures in Fabriciola , but F. flammula and F. parvus lack spermathecae. Sperm ultrastructure in all three species share apomorphies with other fabriciins, but vary in other respects. Fabriciola may be paraphyletic, but material of the type species F. spongicola (Southern, 1921) has been unobtainable so far, and detailed study of this species is required to define the genus Fabriciola adequately.     

A South American snake lineage from the Eocene Greenhouse of North America and a reappraisal of the fossil record of “anilioid” snakes

“Anilioidea” is a likely paraphyletic assemblage of pipe snakes that includes extant Aniliidae from equatorial South America, Uropeltoidea from South and Southeast Asia, and a fossil record that consists primarily of isolated precloacal vertebrae ranging from the earliest Late Cretaceous and includes geographic distributions in North America, South America, Europe, and Africa. Articulated precloacal vertebrae from the middle Eocene Bridger Formation of Wyoming, attributed to Borealilysia nov. gen., represent an unambiguous North American aniliid record and prompts a reconsideration of described pipe snakes and their resultant biogeographic histories. On the basis of vertebral apomorphies, the vast majority of reported fossils cannot be assigned to “Anilioidea”. Instead, most records represent stem taxa and macrostomatans erroneously assigned to anilioids on the basis of generalized features associated with fossoriality. A revised fossil record demonstrates that the only extralimital distributions of fossil “anilioids” consist of the North American aniliid record, and there is no unambiguous fossil record of Old World taxa. The occurrence of aniliids in the mid-high latitudes of the late early Eocene of North America is consistent with histories of northward shifts in equatorial ecosystems during the early Paleogene Greenhouse.     

Phylogeny of the Aplysiidae (Gastropoda, Opisthobranchia) with new aspects of the evolution of seahares

The phylogeny of the Aplysiidae is investigated, based on 37 morphological and histological characters polarized a priori by outgroup comparison. The Aplysiidae represents a monophyletic taxon comprising two distinct clades: Aplysiinae and Dolabellinae + Dolabriferinae + Notarchinae. The traditional classification of Longicommissurata (Aplysiinae + Dolabellinae) is no longer valid since the Longicommissurata are paraphyletic. However, the Brevicommissurata (Dolabriferinae + Notarchinae) form a monophyletic group. Within the Dolabriferinae two sister-groups can be distinguished: Dolabrifera and Phyllaplysia + Petalifera petalifera . The genus Petalifera is paraphyletic. Based on the present phylogeny, several aspects of the evolution of the Aplysiidae are discussed.     

Plesiomorphic and apomorphic pollen structure characteristics of anthemideae (Asteroideae: Asteraceae)

Anthemideae (Asteroideae: Asteraceae) pollen grains have basal columellae, a structural type called “anthemoid” in earlier publications. To survey structure variation in Anthemideae pollen, we examined freeze-sectioned grains from 45 species within 23 representative genera using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). From resulting data and a literature review, we concluded that: 1) pollen of Anthemideae taxa is qualitatively identical except for Ursinia (grains essentially lack basal columellae) and the Artemisia group (branches of basal columellae are complex and interwoven); 2) the double tectum (a term introduced in this study) is a synapomorphy of Asteroideae and plesiomorphic in Anthemideae; 3) apomorphies of Anthemideae grains include large basal columellae, a thick foot layer, and absence of internal foramina; and 4) Anthemideae pollen is qualitatively different from similar pollen in Lactucoideae, a distinction we recognized by restricting “anthemoid” to Anthemideae grains. Ursinia grains have occasional basal columellae and features resembling rolled-up columellae; we consider these vestiges of a reversal to the plesiomorphic condition. To assess quantitative structural variation, 2,200 image-analysis measurements were taken from 73 SEM micrographs. Intrageneric variation was analyzed by standard deviation, and intergeneric variation by principal components analysis. Compared to other Anthemideae taxa, the structural elements of Artemisia grains have reduced dimensions and variability. Otherwise, structural radiation of Anthemideae pollen has produced a phenetic continuum.     

Phylogeny of frogs as inferred from primarily larval characters (Amphibia:Anura)★

This paper presents larval evidence and evaluates its contribution to the discussion of frog phylogeny;136 larval characters,6 reproductive biology characters, and 14 adult morphology characters were scored for 81 frog and 4 caudate species.More than 90% of the data matrix entries represent original data derived from personal direct examination of specimens.Some larval characters are described for the rest time and many others have not been assessed for specic taxa or in a broad phylogenetic context before.Ho‐ moplasy appears common in this and other amphibian morphological data sets.The data supported and conrmed various well‐ known clades, among others the Anura, Bufonidae, Ceratophryinae, Discoglossidae, Dendrobatidae, Hyperoliidae, Microhylidae, South American microhylids, Phyllomedusinae, Pseudinae, Pipoidea, Pipidae, and Scoptanura.The Ascaphidae was sister group to all other anurans and the Pipoidea was placed more basally than in some previous analyses.The Eurasian pelobatids formed a clade, whereas Spea and Pelodytes did not group robustly with them.Pelobatoid frogs emerged as a paraphyletic “transitional” assemblage including Heleophryne. The resolution of basal neobatrachian splits remained labile, although some subclades within the Neobatrachia were robustly supported. The “Hylidae” was paraphyletic, and hyline species were paraphyletic with respect to the Pseudinae.Hemisus clearly was in a clade with the Hyperoliidae and is proposed to be included in that family.Scaphiophryne was conrmed as basal taxon within the Microhylidae.Compared to the larval stages of the most recent common ancestor of anurans, members of the Scoptanura (microhylids except scaphiophrynines)have accumulated the highest number of apomorphic character states in anuran evolution.     

Formal taxa, species groups, and perception of the genus Diplodactylus (Reptilia: Gekkonidae)

Genera with large numbers of species present particular difficulties; the analysis of relationships, of included taxa may be roblematic. One attempt to aproach this problem involves the reco of clusters of species tIat may be informally assembgd into species groups. The problems tE:g the recognition of such assemblages may induce are exlored. It is not that the species groups, as originail formulated, are problematic as they are initiafy erected to demarcate clusters withm an imperfectly known phylogeny of a supposedly monophyletic group. These species groups, however, tend to become recognized as “taxa” rather than operationaf clusters and as such tend to influence the approach to the inclusive taxon taken by subsequent workers. Rather than testing the concept of the species grous, there is a tendency to retain them and to insert other groups between them that do not exactly fit the original scheme. The establishment of species groups, first used to clarify a complex situation, has teen a source of problems for subseuent workers. The history of this aproach is traced for the gekkonid genus Diplodactylus and the problems that have arisen are outlined.     

Species monophyly

In biological systematics, as well as in the philosophy of biology, species and higher taxa are individuated through their unique evolutionary origin. This is taken by some authors to mean that monophyly is a (relational) property not only of higher taxa, but also of species. A species is said to originate through speciation, and to go extinct when it splits into two daughter species (or through terminal extinction). Its unique evolutionary origin is said to bestow identity on a species through time and change, and to render species names rigid designators. Species names are thus believed to function just like names of supraspecific taxa. However, large parts of the Web of Life are composed of species that do not have a unique evolutionary origin from a single population, lineage or stem-species. Further, monophyly is an ambiguous concept if it is defined simply in terms of 'unique evolutionary origin'. Disambiguating the concept by defining a monophyletic taxon as 'a taxon that includes the ancestor and all, and only, its descendant' renders monophyly inapplicable to species. At the heart of the problem lies a fundamental distinction between species and monophyletic taxa, where species form mutually exclusive reticulated systems, while higher taxa form inclusive hierarchical systems. Examples are given both at the species level and below to illustrate the problems that result from the application of the monophyly criterion to species. The conclusion is that the concepts of exclusivity and monophyly should be treated as non-overlapping: exclusivity marks out a species synchronistically, i.e. in the present time. Monophyly marks out clades (groups of species) diachronistically, i.e. within an historical dimension.     

Ceci n'est pas une pipe: names, clades and phylogenetic nomenclature

An introduction is provided to the literature and to issues relating to phylogenetic nomenclature and the PhyloCode, together with a critique of the current Linnaean system of nomenclature. The Linnaean nomenclature fixes taxon names with types, and associates the names with ranks (genus, family, etc.). In phylogenetic nomenclature, names are instead defined with reference to cladistic relationships, and the names are not associated with ranks. We argue that taxon names under the Linnaean system are unclear in meaning and provide unstable group–name associations, notwithstanding whether or not there are agreements on relationships. Furthermore, the Linnaean rank assignments lack justification and invite unwarranted comparisons across taxa. On the contrary, the intention of taxon names in phylogenetic nomenclature is clear and stable, and the application of the names will be unambiguous under any given cladistic hypothesis. The extension of the names reflects current knowledge of relationships, and will shift as new hypotheses are forwarded. The extension of phylogenetic names is, therefore, clear but is associated to (and thus dependent upon) cladistic hypotheses. Stability in content can be maximized with carefully formulated name definitions. A phylogenetic nomenclature will shift the focus from discussions of taxon names towards the understanding of relationships. Also, we contend that species should not be recognized as taxonomic units. The term ‘species’ is ambiguous, it mixes several distinct classes of entities, and there is a large gap between most of the actual concepts and the evidence available to identify the entities. Instead, we argue that only clades should be recognized. Among these, it is useful to tag the smallest named clades, which all represent non-overlapping groups. Such taxa  – LITUs (Least Inclusive Taxonomic Units) – are distinguished from more inclusive clades by being spelled with lower-case initial letter. In contrast to species, LITUs are conceptually straightforward and are, like other clades, identified by apomorphies.     

Phylogenetic systematics of the reptantian Decapoda (Crustacea, Malacostraca)

Although the biology of the reptantian Decapoda has been much studied, the last comprehensive review of reptantian systematics was published more than 80 years ago. We have used cladistic methods to reconstruct the phylogenetic system of the reptantian Decapoda. We can show that the Reptantia represent a monophyletic taxon. The classical groups, the 'Palinura', 'Astacura' and 'Anomura' are paraphyletic assemblages. The Polychelida is the sister-group of all other reptantians. The Astacida is not closely related to the Homarida, but is part of a large monophyletic taxon which also includes the Thalassinida, Anomala and Brachyura. The Anomala and Brachyura are sister-groups and the Thalassinida is the sister-group of both of them. Based on our reconstruction of the sister-group relationships within the Reptantia, we discuss alternative hypotheses of reptantian interrelationships, the systematic position of the Reptantia within the decapods, and draw some conclusions concerning the habits and appearance of the reptantian stem species.