Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Hennigian Phylogenetic Systematics and the ‘Groundplan’ vs. ‘Post-Groundplan’ Approaches: A Reply to Kukalová-Peck

  • Commentary
  • Published:
Evolutionary Biology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The recent contribution by Jarmila Kukalová-Peck on Hennigian phylogenetics and hexapod limb evolution is critically evaluated.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Here referred to as Kristensen (1997), but the discrepancy is easily explicable: the volume has ‘1998’ printed on the colophon and ‘1997’ on the front page of each individual chapter.

  2. JKP’s reference list comprises two additional publications by Kristensen, viz., N. P. Kristensen (1995). Forty [sic] years’ insect phylogenetic systematics. Zoologische Beiträge N. F., 36, 83–124. and N. P. Kristensen (1991). Phylogeny of the extant hexapods. The Insects of Australia, a textbook for students and researchers. In: CSIRO (Eds.). 2nd (ed.) Melbourne: Melbourne University Press. pp. 125–140.

References

  • Béthoux, O. (2007). Cladotypic taxonomy revisited. Arthropod Systematics and Phylogeny, 65, 127–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Béthoux, O., & Briggs, D. E. G. (2008). How Gerarus lost its head: Stem-group Orthoptera and Paraneoptera revisited. Systematic Entomology, 33, 529–547. doi:10.1111/j.1365-3113.2008.00419.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Béthoux, O., Nel, A., & Lapeyrie, J. (2004). The extinct order Caloneurodea (Insecta, Pterygota, Panorthoptera): Wing venation, systematics, and phylogenetic relationships. Annales Zoologici, 54, 289–318.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beutel, R. G., & Gorb, S. (2006). A revised interpretation of the evolution of attachment structures in Hexapoda with special emphasis on Mantophasmatodea. Arthropod Systematics and Phylogeny, 64, 3–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryant, H. N. (2001). Character polarity and the rooting of cladograms. In G. Wagner (Ed.), The character concept in evolutionary biology (pp. 319–337). San Diego: Academic Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, F. M. (1938). Two Carboniferous insects from the vicinity of Mazon Creek, Illinois. American Journal of Science, 36(5), 445–452.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, F. M. (1943). The Lower Permian insects of Kansas. Part 9. The orders Neuroptera, Raphidiodea, Caloneurodea and Prothortoptera (Probnisidae), with additional Protodonata and Megasecoptera. Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 75, 55–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, F. M. (1987). Review of the extinct family Syntonopteridae (order uncertain). Psyche, 94, 373–388. doi:10.1155/1987/25879.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denis, J.-R., Bitsch, J. (1973). Structure céphalique dans les ordres des insectes. In P. P. Grassé (Ed.), Traité de Zoologie (Vol. 8, part 1, pp. 101–593). Paris: Masson et Cie.

  • Domes, K., Norton, R. A., Maraun, M., & Scheu, S. (2007). Reevolution of sexuality breaks Dollo’s law. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 104, 7139–7144. doi:10.1073/pnas.0700034104.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hennig, W. (1966). Phylogenetic systematics (p. 263). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hennig, W. (1969). Die Stammesgeschichte der Insekten (p. 436). Frankfurt am Main: Kramer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hennig, W. (1981). Insect phylogeny (xxii + 514 pp). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kristensen, N. P. (1981). Phylogeny of insect orders. Annual Review of Entomology, 26, 135–157. doi:10.1146/annurev.en.26.010181.001031.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kristensen, N. P. (1991). Phylogeny of the extant hexapods. In CSIRO (Ed.), The insects of Australia, a textbook for students and researchers (2nd ed., pp. 125–140). Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kristensen, N. P. (1995). Forty [sic] years’ insect phylogenetic systematics. Zoologische Beiträge N. F, 36, 125–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kristensen, N. P. (1997). The ground plan and basal diversification of the hexapods. In R. A. Fortey & R. H. Thomas (Eds.), Arthropod relationships (pp. 281–293). London: Chapman and Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kristensen, N. P. (2003). Skeleton and muscles: Adults. Lepidoptera: Moths and butterflies 2. In N. P. Kristensen (Ed.), Handbuch der Zoologie/Handbook of Zoology IV/36 (pp. 39–131). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kukalová-Peck, J. (1983). Origin of the insect wing and wing articulation from the arthropodan leg. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 61, 1618–1669. doi:10.1139/z83-217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kukalová-Peck, J. (1985). Ephemeroid wing venation based upon new gigantic Carboniferous mayflies and basic morphology, phylogeny, and metamorphosis of pterygote insects (Insecta, Ephemerida). Canadian Journal of Zoology, 63, 933–955.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kukalová-Peck, J. (1991). Fossil history and the evolution of hexapod structures. In I. D. Naumann, P. B. Crane, J. F. Lawrence, E. S. Neilsen, J. P. Spradbery, R. W. Taylor, M. J. Whitten, & M. J. Littlejohn (Eds.), The insects of Australia, a textbook for students and researchers (2nd ed., pp. 141–179). Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kukalová-Peck, J. (1992). The “Uniramia” do not exist: The ground plan of the Pterygota as revealed by Permian Diaphanopterodea from Russia (Insecta: Palaeodictyopteroidea). Canadian Journal of Zoology, 70, 236–255. doi:10.1139/z92-037.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kukalová-Peck, J. (2008). Phylogeny of higher taxa in Insecta: Finding synapomorphies in the extant fauna and separating them from homoplasies. Evolutionary Biology, 35, 4–51. doi:10.1007/s11692-007-9013-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kukalová-Peck, J., & Brauckmann, C. (1992). Most Paleozoic Protorthoptera are ancestral hemipteroids: Major wing braces as clues to a new phylogeny of Neoptera (Insecta). Canadian Journal of Zoology, 70, 2452–2473. doi:10.1139/z92-330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kukalová-Peck, J., & Willmann, R. (1990). Lower Permian “mecopteroid-like” insects from central Europe (Insecta, Endopterygota). Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, 27, 459–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, C. R., Raff, E. C., & Raff, R. A. (1994). Dollo’s law and the death and resurrection of genes. Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 91, 12283–12287. doi:10.1073/pnas.91.25.12283.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pohl, H. (2002). Phylogeny of the Strepsiptera based on morphological data of the first instar larvae. Zoologica Scripta, 31, 123–138. doi:10.1046/j.0300-3256.2001.00078.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rasnitsyn, A. P., & Novokshonov, V. G. (1997). On the morphology of Uralia maculata (Insecta: Diaphanopterida) from the Early Permian (Kungurian) of Ural (Russia). Entomologica Scandinavica, 28, 27–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tanaka, A., & Ito, T. (1997). Studies of the genetics and expression of Prowing (Pw): A primitive homeotic mutant of the German cockroach, Blattella germanica. Zoological Science, 14, 339–346. doi:10.2108/zsj.14.95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler, W. C. (1997). Sampling, groundplans, total evidence and the systematics of arthropods. In R. A. Fortey & R. H. Thomas (Eds.), Arthropod relationships (pp. 87–95). London: Chapman and Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willmann, R. (1997). Advances and problems in insect phylogeny. In R. A. Fortey & R. H. Thomas (Eds.), Arthropod relationships (pp. 269–279). London: Chapman and Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willmann, R. (1999). The Upper Carboniferous Lithoneura lameeri (Insecta, Ephemeroptera?). Paläontologische Zeitschrift, 73, 289–302.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Freiberg University of Mining and Technology, Institute of Geology, Department of Palaeontology, Bernhard-von-Cotta Street 2, 09596, Freiberg, Germany

    Olivier Béthoux

  2. State Natural History Collections of Dresden, Museum of Zoology, Königsbrücker Landstrabe 159, 01109, Dresden, Germany

    Olivier Béthoux

  3. Natural History Museum of Denmark, University of Copenhagen, Universitetsparken 15, 2100, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Niels P. Kristensen

  4. Division of Entomology (Palaeoentomology), Natural History Museum, University of Kansas, 1501 Crestline Drive-Suite 140, Lawrence, Kansas, 66049-2811, USA

    Michael S. Engel

Authors
  1. Olivier Béthoux
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Niels P. Kristensen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michael S. Engel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael S. Engel.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Béthoux, O., Kristensen, N.P. & Engel, M.S. Hennigian Phylogenetic Systematics and the ‘Groundplan’ vs. ‘Post-Groundplan’ Approaches: A Reply to Kukalová-Peck. Evol Biol 35, 317–323 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11692-008-9035-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11692-008-9035-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation