It is normal for classification approaches to be diverse

It is asserted that the postmodern concept of science, unlike the classical ideal, presumes necessary existence of various classification approaches (schools) in taxonomy, each corresponding to a particular aspect of consideration of the "taxic reality". They are set up by diversity of initial epistemological and ontological backgrounds which fix in a certain way a) fragments of that reality allowable for investigation, and b) allowable methods of exploration of the fragments being fixed. It makes it possible to define a taxonomic school as a unity of the above backgrounds together with consideration aspect delimited by them. Two extreme positions of these backgrounds could be recognized in recent taxonomic thought. One of them follows the scholastic tradition of elaboration of a formal and, hence, universal classificatory method ("new typology", numerical phenetics, pattern cladistics). Another one asserts dependence of classificatory approach on the judgment of the nature of taxic reality (natural philosophy, evolutionary schools of taxonomy). Some arguments are put forward in favor of significant impact of evolutionary thinking onto the theory of modern taxonomy. This impact is manifested by the correspondence principle which makes classificatory algorithms (and hence resulting classifications) depending onto initial assumptions about causes of taxic diversity. It is asserted that criteria of "quality" of both classifications proper and classificatory methods can be correctly formulated within the framework of a particular consideration aspect only. For any group of organisms, several particular classifications are rightful to exist, each corresponding to a particular consideration aspect. These classifications could not be arranged along the "better-worse" scale, as they reflect different fragments of the taxic reality. Their mutual interpretation depends on degree of compatibility of background assumptions and of the tasks being resolved. Extensionally, classifications are compatible as much as they coincide by context and hierarchical structure of included taxa. Intentionally, typological classifications are compatible if included taxa are comparable by their diagnoses, while phylogenetic classifications are compatible if the included taxa are ascribed monophyletic status. A brief consideration is given to the "new phylogenetics" (= "genophyletics") as to a classificatory approach aimed at elaboration of parsimonious phylogenetic hypotheses based on molecular biology data and employing numerical methods of cladistic analysis. This approach is shown to borrows some phenetic ideas and revives scholastic principle of unified classificatory basis. It is supposed that, in a time, biological classification would get escaping from plethora of positivistic ideas (including those being developed by nowaday cladistics) and would assimilate (revive) more actively holistic worldview.     

From Haeckel’s phylogenetics and Hennig’s cladistics to the method of maximum likelihood: Advantages and limitations of modern and traditional approaches to phylogeny reconstruction

The maximum likelihood and Bayesian methods are based on parametric models of character evolution. They assume that if we know these models as well as distribution of character states in studied organisms, we can infer the probability of different phylogenetic trajectories leading from ancestors to modern forms. In fact, these methods are mathematized variants of the traditional Haeckel’s approach to phylogeny reconstruction. In contrast to classical and parsimonious cladistics, they infer phylogenies without such limitations as necessity of strictly dichotomous evolution, exclusion of plesiomorphic characters, and acceptance of only holophyletic taxa. They assume that evolution may be reticulated, any homologous characters—both apomorphic and plesiomorphic—can be used for inferring phylogenies, and interpretation of evolutionary lineages as taxa is optional. Thus, the main difference between the new and more traditional approaches to phylogeny reconstruction lies not in the characters used (molecular or morphological) but in the methodology of analysis. It must be admitted that a revolution began in phylogenetics 10–20 years ago. However, the fundamental changes in phylogenetics have been carried out so calmly and neatly by the people who started this revolution, that many systematists still do not realize their importance.     

Realism in systematics through biogeographical consilience

There is an overlooked gap between any phylogenetic hypothesis and the natural world shaped by historical evolutionary processes, since the main concern during phylogenetic analyses is solely the search for congruence among characters under a defined criterion. Given a scientific realistic view, however, phylogenetic hypotheses are scientific theories that try to depict the historical series of cladogenetic events among biological entities. In this sense, the challenge is to establish a form of measuring the degree of truthfulness of our phylogenetic hypotheses. Here, we advocate the use of consilient biogeographical hypotheses to recognize the biological meaning of a phylogenetic inference apart from its instrumentalist value. Our proposal is based on the assumption that robust biogeographical hypotheses allows us to be close to the real evolutionary history of taxa. © The Willi Hennig Society 2011.     

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.     

A new view of insect-crustacean relationships II. Inferences from expressed sequence tags and comparisons with neural cladistics

The enormous diversity of Arthropoda has complicated attempts by systematists to deduce the history of this group in terms of phylogenetic relationships and phenotypic change. Traditional hypotheses regarding the relationships of the major arthropod groups (Chelicerata, Myriapoda, Crustacea, and Hexapoda) focus on suites of morphological characters, whereas phylogenomics relies on large amounts of molecular sequence data to infer evolutionary relationships. The present discussion is based on expressed sequence tags (ESTs) that provide large numbers of short molecular sequences and so provide an abundant source of sequence data for phylogenetic inference. This study presents well-supported phylogenies of diverse arthropod and metazoan outgroup taxa obtained from publicly-available databases. An in-house bioinformatics pipeline has been used to compile and align conserved orthologs from each taxon for maximum likelihood inferences. This approach resolves many currently accepted hypotheses regarding internal relationships between the major groups of Arthropoda, including monophyletic Hexapoda, Tetraconata (Crustacea + Hexapoda), Myriapoda, and Chelicerata sensu lato (Pycnogonida + Euchelicerata). "Crustacea" is a paraphyletic group with some taxa more closely related to the monophyletic Hexapoda. These results support studies that have utilized more restricted EST data for phylogenetic inference, yet they differ in important regards from recently published phylogenies employing nuclear protein-coding sequences. The present results do not, however, depart from other phylogenies that resolve Branchiopoda as the crustacean sister group of Hexapoda. Like other molecular phylogenies, EST-derived phylogenies alone are unable to resolve morphological convergences or evolved reversals and thus omit what may be crucial events in the history of life. For example, molecular data are unable to resolve whether a Hexapod-Branchiopod sister relationship infers a branchiopod-like ancestry of the Hexapoda, or whether this assemblage originates from a malacostracan-like ancestor, with the morphologically simpler Branchiopoda being highly derived. Whereas this study supports many internal arthropod relationships obtained by other sources of molecular data, other approaches are required to resolve such evolutionary scenarios. The approach presented here turns out to be essential: integrating results of molecular phylogenetics and neural cladistics to infer that Branchiopoda evolved simplification from a more elaborate ancestor. Whereas the phenomenon of evolved simplification may be widespread, it is largely invisible to molecular techniques unless these are performed in conjunction with morphology-based strategies.     

Phylogenetic thinking in the modern biology

Any research activity is conducted within the framework of a cognitive situation which is defined by certain basic assumptions about ontology of the portion of the objective world under investigation. From the standpoint of the non-classical scientific epistemology, a part of that situation is constituted by personal knowledge which is formed by a set of thinking (cognitive) styles. The scholastic thinking existing in taxonomy and phylogenetics is considered as an example showing unavoidability of such styles in the natural history knowledge. It is initially rooted in the antic, mythological by its essence, persuasion of isomorphism between movements of the objective reality and of the mind. The instrumentalism entailed by scholastic thinking is based on the mythologeme according to which the "right method" par excellence can lead to the "right knowledge". That is why any disputes between different numerical methods of phylogenetic reconstructions are vain: their validity could be assessed not formally but within particular cognitive situations formed by particular basic models of the phylogenesis. Phylogenetic thinking is of the key importance in evolutionary biology and has great impact on various fields of biology based on it. It is pretty mythological because of non-observability of the phylogenesis: the latter is rather "thinked-in" in the objective world then is induced from the observed facts. It constitutes a part of the evolutionary thinking considering mainly macroevolutionary trends and stressing the initial causes in the structure of causal relations in the analyses of the diversity of organisms. The "tree thinking" of O'Hara is its rough operational equivalent. Relation between phylogenetic thinking and some other styles are considered, which are population, phenetic, typological, and epigenetic ("developmental" of O'Hara). Phylogenetic thinking makes it obliged inclusion of the initial causes in the explanatory models which underlie adaptive and functional peculiarities of organisms, as well as of the entire structure of the biodiversity. It manifests itself in such kind of models through uncovering the phylogenetic signal. This thinking style has great effect on understanding of the ontology of taxa and acknowledges the objective status of the phylogenetic pattern. It is intrinsically included in the argumentation schemes of constructional morphology, comparative phylogenetics. The central metaphor of the phylogenetics is the Tree of Life. Emagination of its unity and uniquiness is of naturphilosophical nature. From the contemporary epistemological standpoint, it should be considered as a generalization upon partial hypotheses of evolution of particular structures each corresponding to certain consideration aspect of the global phylogenesis. Acknowledging of multi-aspectness of the phylogenesis constitutes one of the important points of modern phylogenetic thinking. As different semogeneses are incompletely congruent, the Tree of Life is less certain than each of the initial hypotheses. Any attempt to make it more resolved would lead to its reduction to any of the particular semogenetic scheme (i.e. to a "gene tree") or to its "decay" into several trees each corresponding to a particular consideration aspect of the global Tree.     

Studies in cave life evolution: a rationale for future theoretical developments using phylogenetic inference

As in every field of comparative biology, phylogeny provides an independent reference system in studies on cave life evolution to test current theoretical proposals. Using phylogeny, sound hypotheses on the ancestral states of characters and their subsequent changes can be made by polarizing the characters between related taxa. Hypotheses on evolutionary processes can also be tested by comparing the patterns they imply with independently inferred phylogenetic patterns. The power of the tests relies upon the independence of phylogenetic patterns (built with cladistics using Wagner parsimony) and the theoretical proposals under study. Classical assumptions on the evolution of troglobitic life are analysed with this methodology. The following points are discussed: what is a troglobitic taxon? Are there features characteristic of troglobitic taxa? Is troglobitic life an evolutionary dead end? What circumstances favour troglobitic evolution? Using phylogenetic analysis, the presence or absence of so-called troglomorphic features were inferred in troglobitic taxa. In fact these taxa can be characterized only by their behavioural ecology. Pre-adaptations (exaptations) can also be precisely defined. Cave living does not appear to be an evolutionary dead end. Two patterns subsequent to cave life appearance have been documented: speciation of troglobitic taxa in the subterranean environment, and reversal to an epigean habitat. Troglobitic life thus turns out to be one step in the diversification of clades. Troglobitic life is usually explained as an evolution under the pressure of unfavourable environmental conditions, or the conquest of a new resource, or the result of biological interactions (competition, predation). Phylogenetic analyses show that none of these hypotheses propose clear alternatives on cave life evolution. Moreover most of their a priori statements cannot easily be falsified. As such they have only limited explanatory power.     

Two issues in archaeological phylogenetics: taxon construction and outgroup selection

Cladistics is widely used in biology and paleobiology to construct phylogenetic hypotheses, but rarely has it been applied outside those disciplines. There is, however, no reason to suppose that cladistics is not applicable to anything that evolves by cladogenesis and produces a nested hierarchy of taxa. This includes cultural phenomena such as languages and tools recovered from archaeological contexts. Two methodological issues assume primacy in attempts to extend cladistics to archaeological materials: the construction of analytical taxa and the selection of appropriate outgroups. In biology the species is the primary taxonomic unit used, irrespective of the debates that have arisen in phylogenetic theory over the nature of species. Also in biology the phylogenetic history of a group of taxa usually is well enough known that an appropriate taxon can be selected as an outgroup. No analytical unit parallel to the species exists in archaeology, and thus taxa have to be constructed specifically for phylogenetic analysis. One method of constructing taxa is paradigmatic classification, which defines classes (taxa) on the basis of co-occurring, unweighted character states. Once classes have been created, a form of occurrence seriation-an archaeological method based on the theory of cultural transmission and heritability-offers an objective basis for selecting an outgroup.     

Problematica old and new

Problematica are taxa that defy robust phylogenetic placement. Traditionally the term was restricted to fossil forms, but it is clear that extant taxa may be just as difficult to place, whether using morphological or molecular (nucleotide, gene or genomic) markers for phylogeny reconstruction. We discuss the kinds and causes of Problematica within the Metazoa, as well as criteria for their recognition and possible solutions. The inclusive set of Problematica changes depending upon the nature and quality of (homologous) data available, the methods of phylogeny reconstruction and the sister taxa inferred by their placement or displacement. We address Problematica in the context of pre-cladistic phylogenetics, numerical morphological cladistics and molecular phylogenetics, and focus on general biological and methodological implications of Problematica, rather than presenting a review of individual taxa. Rather than excluding Problematica from phylogeny reconstruction, as has often been preferred, we conclude that the study of Problematica is crucial for both the resolution of metazoan phylogeny and the proper inference of body plan evolution.     

Methods of systematic analysis: the relative superiority of phylogenetic systematics

The superiority of cladistic methods to both synthetic and phenetic methods is briefly advanced and reviewed. Cladistics creates testable hypotheses of phylogeny that also give a highly informative summary of available data. Thus it best fits the criteria for a method for determining the general reference classification in biology. For protistologists in particular, cladistics is especially useful. Inundated by an abundance of ultrastructural, biochemical, and cell biological information, protistologists could be greatly helped by the informative way in which cladistics orders and summarizes the data. In addition to classifying protist taxa, hypotheses about the evolution of cell organelles and cellular could be scientifically formulated and tested by cladistics . Because cladistic classifications best summarize the data, they would also be best for making predictions about taxa and characters. They would, for the same reason, be the most stable. Widespread adoption of cladistic methods would serve to stabilize the now fluid state of protist taxonomy. It is for all of these reasons that such methods best suit the needs of the evolutionary protistologist .     

Methods of systematic analysis: The relative superiority of phylogenetic systematics

The superiority of cladistic methods to both synthetic and phenetic methods is briefly advanced and reviewed. Cladistics creates testable hypotheses of phylogeny that also give a highly informative summary of available data. Thus it best fits the criteria for a method for determining the general reference classification in biology.For protistologists in particular, cladistics is especially useful. Inundated by an abundance of ultrastructural, biochemical, and cell biological information, protistologists could be greatly helped by the informative way in which cladistics orders and summarizes the data. In addition to classifying protist taxa, hypotheses about the evolution of cell organelles and cellular could be scientifically formulated and tested by cladistics. Because cladistic classifications best summarize the data, they would also be best for making predictions about taxa and characters. They would, for the same reason, be the most stable. Widespread adoption of cladistic methods would serve to stabilize the now fluid state of protist taxonomy. It is for all of these reasons that such methods best suit the needs of the evolutionary protistologist.     

A Primer to Molecular Phylogenetic Analysis in Plants

Reconstructing a tree of life by inferring evolutionary history is an important focus of evolutionary biology. Phylogenetic reconstructions also provide useful information for a range of scientific disciplines such as botany, zoology, phylogeography, archaeology and biological anthropology. Until the development of protein and DNA sequencing techniques in the 1960s and 1970s, phylogenetic reconstructions were based on fossil records and comparative morphological/physiological analyses. Since then, progress in molecular phylogenetics has compensated for some of the shortcomings of phenotype-based comparisons. Comparisons at the molecular level increase the accuracy of phylogenetic inference because there is no environmental influence on DNA/peptide sequences and evaluation of sequence similarity is not subjective. While the number of morphological/physiological characters that are sufficiently conserved for phylogenetic inference is limited, molecular data provide a large number of datapoints and enable comparisons from diverse taxa. Over the last 20 years, developments in molecular phylogenetics have greatly contributed to our understanding of plant evolutionary relationships. Regions in the plant nuclear and organellar genomes that are optimal for phylogenetic inference have been determined and recent advances in DNA sequencing techniques have enabled comparisons at the whole genome level. Sequences from the nuclear and organellar genomes of thousands of plant species are readily available in public databases, enabling researchers without access to molecular biology tools to investigate phylogenetic relationships by sequence comparisons using the appropriate nucleotide substitution models and tree building algorithms. In the present review, the statistical models and algorithms used to reconstruct phylogenetic trees are introduced and advances in the exploration and utilization of plant genomes for molecular phylogenetic analyses are discussed.     

Supertree analyses of the roles of viviparity and habitat in the evolution of atherinomorph fishes

Using supertree phylogenetic reconstructions, we investigate how livebearing and freshwater adaptations may have shaped evolutionary patterns in the Atherinomorpha, a large clade (approximately 1500 extant species) of ray-finned fishes. Based on maximum parsimony reconstructions, livebearing appears to have evolved at least four times independently in this group, and no reversions to the ancestral state of oviparity were evident. With respect to habitat, at least five evolutionary transitions apparently occurred from freshwater to marine environments, at least two transitions in the opposite direction, and no clear ancestral state was identifiable. All viviparous clades exhibited more extant species than their oviparous sister taxa, suggesting that transitions to viviparity may be associated with cladogenetic diversification. Transitions to freshwater were usually, but not invariably associated with increased species richness, but the trend was, overall, not significant among sister clades. Additionally, we investigated whether livebearing and freshwater adaptations are currently associated with elevated risks of extinction as implied by species' presence on the 2004 IUCN Red List. Despite being correlated with decreased brood size, livebearing has not significantly increased extinction risk in the Atherinomorpha. However, freshwater species were significantly more likely than marine species to be listed as endangered.     

Towards an inclusive philosophy for phylogenetic inference

We defend and expand on our earlier proposal for an inclusive philosophical framework for phylogenetics, based on an interpretation of Popperian corroboration that is decoupled from the popular falsificationist interpretation of Popperian philosophy. Any phylogenetic inference method can provide Popperian "evidence" or "test statements" based on the method's goodness-of-fit values for different tree hypotheses. Corroboration, or the severity of that test, requires that the evidence is improbable without the hypothesis, given only background knowledge that includes elements of chance. This framework contrasts with attempted Popperian justifications for cladistic parsimony--in which evidence is the data, background knowledge is restricted to descent with modification, and "corroboration," as a by-product of nonfalsification, is to be measured by cladistic parsimony. Recognition that cladistic "corroboration" reflects only goodness-of-fit, not corroboration/severity, makes it clear that standard cladistic prohibitions, such as restrictions on the evolutionary models to be included in "background knowledge," have no philosophical status. The capacity to assess Popperian corroboration neither justifies nor excludes any phylogenetic method, but it does provide a framework in phylogenetics for learning from errors--cases where apparent good evidence is probable even without the hypothesis. We explore these issues in the context of corroboration assessments applied to likelihood methods and to a new form of parsimony. These different forms of evidence and corroboration assessment point also to a new way to combine evidence--not at the level of overall fit, but at the level of overall corroboration/severity. We conclude that progress in an inclusive phylogenetics will be well served by the rejection of cladistic philosophy.     

Mosaics of convergences and noise in morphological phylogenies: what's in a viverrid-like carnivoran?

Adaptive convergence in morphological characters has not been thoroughly investigated, and the processes by which phylogenetic relationships may be misled by morphological convergence remains unclear. We undertook a case study on the morphological evolution of viverrid-like feliformians (Nandinia, Cryptoprocta, Fossa, Eupleres, Prionodon) and built the largest morphological matrix concerning the suborder Feliformia to date. A total of 349 characters grouped into four anatomical partitions were used for all species of Viverridae and viverrid-like taxa plus representatives of the Felidae, Hyaenidae, Herpestidae, and one Malagasy mongoose. Recent molecular phylogenetic analyses suggest that viverrid-like morphotypes appeared independently at least three times during feliformian evolution. We thus used a synthetic molecular tree to assess morphological evolutionary patterns characterizing the viverrid-like taxa. We examined phylogenetic signal, convergence and noise in morphological characters using (a) tree-length distribution (g1), (b) partitioned Bremer support, (c) RI values and their distribution, (d) respective contributions of diagnostic synapomorphies at the nodes for each partition, (e) patterns of shared convergences among viverrid-like taxa and other feliformian lineages, (f) tree-length differences among alternative hypotheses, and (g) the successive removal of convergent character states from the original matrix. In addition, the lability of complex morphological structures was assessed by mapping them onto the synthetic molecular tree. The unconstrained morphological analysis yielded phylogenetic groupings that closely reflected traditional classification. The use of a synthetic molecular tree (constraint) combined with our thorough morphological investigations revealed the mosaics of convergences likely to have contributed to part of the historical uncertainty over viverrid classification. It also showed that complex morphological structures could be subjected to reversible evolutionary trends. The morphological matrix proved useful in characterizing several feliformian clades with diagnostic synapomorphies. These results support the removal from the traditionally held Viverridae of several viverrid-like taxa into three distinct families: Nandiniidae (Nandinia), Prionodontidae (Prionodon), and the newly defined Eupleridae (including Cryptoprocta, Fossa, Eupleres plus all "mongoose-like" Malagasy taxa). No clearly "phylogenetically misleading" data subsets could be identified, and the great majority of morphological convergences appeared to be nonadaptive. The multiple approaches used in this study revealed that the most disruptive element with regards to morphological phylogenetic reconstruction was noise, which blured the expression of phylogenetic signal. This study demonstrates the crucial need to consider independent (molecular) phylogenies in order to produce reliable evolutionary hypotheses and should promote a new approach to the definition of morphological characters in mammals. [Constrained analysis; convergence; evolutionary scenario; Feliformia; morphology; noise; phylogenetic signal; phylogeny; Viverridae.].     

Testing "species pair" hypotheses: evolutionary processes in the lichen-forming species complex Porpidia flavocoerulescens and Porpidia melinodes

Pairs of taxa are commonly found in lichen-forming ascomycetes that differ primarily in their reproductive modes: one taxon reproduces sexually, the other vegetatively. The evolutionary processes underlying such "species pairs" are unknown. The species pair formed by Porpidia flavocoerulescens (sexual) and Porpidia melinodes (vegetative) was chosen to investigate four previously proposed hypotheses. These hypotheses posit that species pairs are either two monophyletic, independently evolving species with contrasting reproductive mode; a single outcrossing species polymorphic with regard to its reproductive modes; a sexual mother lineage frequently giving rise to asexual spin-offs; or a complex of cryptic species. The phylogenetic patterns observed within the species pair in the present study were analyzed using stringent hypothesis testing and visualizations of relationships and conflict based on tree and network reconstructions. DNA sequences at the three analyzed loci revealed the same four to five deeply divergent lineages. A detailed analysis of DNA-sequence variability revealed closely linked gene loci, but high levels of conflict within each of the gene fragments, as well as between observed genetic lineages. The observed patterns of phylogenetic relationships, linkage, and conflict are not congruent with any of the previously proposed species pair hypotheses. Rather, it is proposed that the observed results can be explained by conflicting reproductive and nutritional requirements imposed by an obligate symbiotic lifestyle. These interacting constraints produce recurring selective sweeps within predominantly vegetatively reproducing lineages and are the main forces that shape the evolution within the investigated species pair.     

How much can cladistics tell us about early hominid relationships?

Although cladistic analysis has been used to compare hypotheses of relationships among early hominids, the outcomes of different studies have depended entirely on the assumptions made by different investigators. Problems include the close genetic relationship of early hominid taxa, small fossil sample sizes, possible correlations among characters, and a lack of understanding about the evolutionary factors affecting characters. This study investigates the interaction of some of these problems affecting early hominid phylogenetics. Monte Carlo simulations of character state evolution in closely related taxa demonstrate that the sample sizes and close genetic relationships of early hominids do not permit cladistic analyses to obtain unequivocal results. Even with unrealistically good assumptions about the evolutionary dynamics affecting characters, the probability of the most parsimonious hypothesis being true is unacceptably small. In the face of these problems, even phylogenetic statements that are supported by a strong consensus of cladistic studies may nevertheless be in error, and such errors are likely to confound the placement of new specimens and taxa. Advancement in our knowledge of hominid phylogeny can depend only on a fuller understanding of the natural history and evolutionary dynamics of traits.     

ON SPECIES and OTHER TAXA

Abstract— It is argued that taxa, whether Linnaean or phylogenetic, belong to Popper's worlds 2 and 3, the worlds of knowledge, but that they represent entities residing in world 1, the world of objects, namely, classes of living beings. The Linnaean taxa are concepts, and thus untestable, whereas phylogenetic taxa are statements, the monophyletic taxa being true, and the paraphyletic and polyphyletic ones false statements. The taxa are neither strictly nor numerically universal statements, but probabilistic ones which cannot be falsified by single observations. It is suggested that the classical "species problem" is due to the fact that "species" has been used in three different senses. First, traditionally it has been assumed that the specific "essence" of an organism is that by which it is what it is. When we know the species, we know the organism. Second, the species are terminal taxa in the phylogenetic hierarchy. This implies that it is only a very small part of the "essence" of the organism which distinguishes the species. The remaining part characterizes the succession of superior taxa in the phylogenetic lineage which ends with the species in question. Third, the species has been regarded to be the "evolutionary unit." This idea may be refuted for two reasons: (1) since concepts and statements cannot evolve, species cannot evolve either, and (2) it is generally in very small isolated populations that evolutionary innovations are first established. In Linnean systematics the superior taxa are allotted categorical rank. The fact that the classification is constrained by this conventional stipulation implies that the superior taxa are often man-made artifacts. In the phylogenetic hierarchy, composed of monophyletic taxa, the ontological states of the taxa is completely independent of their numerical rank; the kingdom is as "real" as the species.     

Problems with the use of cladistic analysis in palaeoanthropology

Cladistic analysis is a popular method for reconstructing evolutionary relationships on the human lineage. However, it has limitations and hidden assumptions that are often not considered by palaeoanthropologists. Some researchers who are opposed to its use regard cladistics as the preferred method for taxonomic «splitters» and claim it has lead to a revitalisation of typology. Typology remains a part of human evolutionary studies, regardless of the acceptance or use of cladistics. The assumption/preference for «splitting» over «lumping» in cladistics (alpha) taxonomy and the general failure to evaluate (post-hoc) such taxonomies have served to reinforce this assertion.

Researchers have also adopted a number of practices that are logically untenable or introduce considerable error. The evolutionary trend of human encephalisation, apparently isometric with body size, and concurrent reduction in the gut and masticatory apparatus, suggests continuous cladistic characters are biased by problems of body size.

The method suffers a logical weakness, or circularity, leading to bias when characters with multiple states are used. Coding of such characters can only be done using prior criteria, and this is usually done using an existing phylogenetic scheme. Another problem with coding character states is the handling of variation within species. While this form of variation is usually ignored by palaeoanthropologists, when characters are recognised as varying, their treatment as a separate state adds considerable error to cladograms.

The genetic proximity of humans, chimpanzees and gorillas has important implications for cladistic analyses. It is argued that chimpanzees and gorillas should be treated as ingroup taxa and an alternative outgroup such as orangutans should be used, or an (hypothetical) ancestral body plan developed. Making chimpanzees and gorillas ingroup taxa would considerably enhance the biological utility of anthropological cladograms.

All published human cladograms fail to meet standard quality criteria indicating that none of them may be considered reliable. The continuing uncertainty over the number and composition of fossil human species is the largest single source of error for cladistics and human phylogenetic reconstruction.     

Cytochrome b and Bayesian inference of whale phylogeny

In the mid 1990s cytochrome b and other mitochondrial DNA data reinvigorated cetacean phylogenetics by proposing many novel and provocative hypotheses of cetacean relationships. These results sparked a revision and reanalysis of morphological datasets, and the collection of new nuclear DNA data from numerous loci. Some of the most controversial mitochondrial hypotheses have now become benchmark clades, corroborated with nuclear DNA and morphological data; others have been resolved in favor of more traditional views. That major conflicts in cetacean phylogeny are disappearing is encouraging. However, most recent papers aim specifically to resolve higher-level conflicts by adding characters, at the cost of densely sampling taxa to resolve lower-level relationships. No molecular study to date has included more than 33 cetaceans. More detailed molecular phylogenies will provide better tools for evolutionary studies. Until more genes are available for a high number of taxa, can we rely on readily available single gene mitochondrial data? Here, we estimate the phylogeny of 66 cetacean taxa and 24 outgroups based on Cytb sequences. We judge the reliability of our phylogeny based on the recovery of several deep-level benchmark clades. A Bayesian phylogenetic analysis recovered all benchmark clades and for the first time supported Odontoceti monophyly based exclusively on analysis of a single mitochondrial gene. The results recover the monophyly of all but one family level taxa within Cetacea, and most recently proposed super- and subfamilies. In contrast, parsimony never recovered all benchmark clades and was sensitive to a priori weighting decisions. These results provide the most detailed phylogeny of Cetacea to date and highlight the utility of both Bayesian methodology in general, and of Cytb in cetacean phylogenetics. They furthermore suggest that dense taxon sampling, like dense character sampling, can overcome problems in phylogenetic reconstruction.