On adaptation, the assessment of adaptations, and the value of adaptive arguments in phylogenetic reconstruction

Evolutionary adaptation concerns a relative concept and the study of adaptations is directed to structures of individuals. The concept is devoid of any meaning when it is applied to species or populations. Adaptation is not synonymous with fitness or survival but does contribute to both of them. The term adaptation has a dual meaning since it refers both to the process of adaptation and to the state of being adapted. In the process of adaptation the mechanism of natural selection takes a prominent position. But the operation and effectiveness of natural selection are constrained by various limiting factors. Besides that, features may also be the result of nonadaptive evolution and only attain their present adaptive function at a later point in time. Another possibility is that features have at present a function different from the one for which they were initially designed. With respect to the state of being, the study of adaptation attempts to examine whether a particular feature indeed forms an adequate response to selection forces from the environment. Five methods or approaches generally are used to assess the adaptive significance of features, viz. the comparative, correlation, optimization, cladistic, and synthetic approach. Only the last-mentioned approach forms an adequate method since it attempts to establish, by direct analysis, which well-defined selection force exerts its influence on a certain character. The practicing taxonomist is faced with the problem that the data necessary to apply the synthetic method, generally require detailed field studies. Not all evolutionary changes are under the influence of natural selection. The presence of some features may be based on entirely different mechanisms, such as genetic drift, mutational pressure, pleiotropic gene action, allometric growth, or ecophenotypic responses. Various problems inherent to the optimization approach, and several others of practical and theoretical nature, make the morphocline method of the functional and evolutionary morphologists unsuitable as a method for phylogenetic reconstruction.