Advertisement

Acta Biotheoretica

, Volume 39, Issue 1, pp 37–46 | Cite as

The use of primitive character state distributions in the assessment of holophyly

  • Mark Wilkinson
Article

Abstract

Cladistic analyses are based on the distinction between primitive and derived character states (hypotheses of the polarity of evolutionary transformations) and a complete reliance on only derived character state distributions as bona fide evidence of holophyletic assemblages of taxa. The cladistic premise that only derived character state distributions provide evidence of holophyly is reconsidered and shown to be both unjustified and inconsistent with the desire or methodological prescription of using all the available evidence. Cladistic techniques are here viewed primarily as methods for the ordering of character states so that they may be differentially weighted. The problem of assigning realistic differential weight to primitive and derived character state distributions is briefly discussed. One possible use of primitive character state distributions as evidence of holophyly that is largely free of the problem of weight is proposed. This application is illustrated with an example from the caecilian amphibians (Amphibia: Gymnophiona).

Key Words

Phylogenetic inference primitive characters cladistics holophyly 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arnold, E.N. (1981). Estimating phylogenies at low taxonomic levels.- Z. Zool. Syst. Evolut.-forsch. 19: 1–35.Google Scholar
  2. Ashlock, P.H. (1971). Monophyly and associated terms.- Syst. Zool. 20: 63–69.Google Scholar
  3. Ashlock, P.H. (1973). Monophyly again.- Syst. Zool. 21: 430–437.Google Scholar
  4. Eldredge, N. and Cracraft, J. (1980). Phylogenetic Patterns and the Evolutionary Process.- New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Duellman, W.E. and Trueb, L. (1986). Biology of Amphibians.- New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.Google Scholar
  6. Farris, J.S. (1983). The logical basis of phylogenetic analysis.- In: V. Funk & N. Platnick, ed., Advances in Cladistics II, pp. 7–36.- New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Felsenstein, J. (1978). Cases in which parsimony or compatibility methods will be positively misleading. Syst. Zool. 27: 401–410.Google Scholar
  8. Hennig, W. (1966). Phylogenetic Systematics.- Urbana: Univ. Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  9. Kluge, A.G. (1987). Cladistic relationships in the Gekkonoidea (Squamata, Sauria).- Misc. Pub. Mus. Zool. Univ. Michigan, 173: 1–54.Google Scholar
  10. Kluge, A.G. (1989). A concern for evidence and a phylogenetic hypothesis of relationships among Epicrates (Boidae, Serpentes).- Syst. Zool. 38: 7–25.Google Scholar
  11. Lescure, J., Renous, S. and Gasc, J.-P. (1986). Proposition d'une nouvelle classification des ampibiens gymnophiones.- Soc. Zool. France Mem. 43: 145–177.Google Scholar
  12. Maslin, T.P. (1952). Morphological criteria of phyletic relationships.- Syst. Zool. 1: 49–70.Google Scholar
  13. Michevich, M.F. (1982). Transformation series analysis.- Syst. Zool. 31: 461–478.Google Scholar
  14. Nussbaum, R.A. (1979). The taxonomic status of the caecilian genus Uraeotyphlus Peters.- Occ. Pap. Mus. Zool. Univ. Michigan 687: 1–20.Google Scholar
  15. Sober, E. (1983). Parsimony in systematics: philosophical issues.- Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 14: 335–337.Google Scholar
  16. Sober, E. (1985). A likelihood justification of parsimony.- Cladistics 1: 209–233.Google Scholar
  17. Sober, E. (1988). Reconstructing the Past.- London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  18. Watrous, L.E. and Wheeler, Q.D. (1981). The outgroup comparison method of character analysis.- Syst. Zool. 30: 1–11.Google Scholar
  19. Wilkinson, M. (1991). Homoplasy and parsimony analysis.- Syst. Zool. in press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark Wilkinson
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. of GeologyUniversity of BristolBristolUK

Personalised recommendations