Advertisement

Acta Biotheoretica

, Volume 43, Issue 3, pp 249–257 | Cite as

Synamorphy, monophyly, and cladistic analysis: A reply to Wilkinson

  • Michael F. Whiting
  • Lawrence M. Kelly
Article
  • 26 Downloads

Abstract

Wilkinson (1991) suggests that the problems of polarity decisions and homoplasy in a cladistic analysis may be solved if cladists simply accept plesiomorphy as a reliable indicator of monophyly. Here we argue that: (1) Wilkinson's argument is based on misapprehension of synapomorphy and the problem of homoplasy; (2) His proposed methodology fails to consider the full ramifications of rooting, polarity, and parsimony; and (3) His method does not solve the problems he raises. We demonstrate the limitations of this methodology by using Wilkinson's practical example. We find no justification for the assertion that plesiomorphy may reliably delimit monophyly and recommend against Wilkinson's suggested methodological revisions.

Keywords

Character State Cladistic Analysis Plesiomorphic State Transformation Series Hypothetical Tree 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. de Pinna, M.C.C. (1991). Concepts and tests of homology in the cladistic paradigm. Cladistics 7: 367–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Duellman, W.E. and L. Treub (1986). Biology of Amphibians. New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company.Google Scholar
  3. Farris, J.S. (1970). Methods for computing Wagner trees. Syst. Zool. 19: 83–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Farris, J.S. (1979). The information content of the phylogenetic system. Syst. Zool. 28: 483–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Farris, J.S. (1980). The efficient diagnoses of the phylogenetic system. Syst. Zool. 29: 386–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Farris, J.S. (1982). Simplicity and informativeness in systematics and phylogeny. Syst. Zool. 31: 413–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Farris, J.S. (1983). The logical basis of phylogenetic analysis. In: N. Platnick and V. Funk, eds., Advances in Cladistics II, pp. 7–36, New York, Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Hennig, W. (1966). Phylogenetic Systematics. Urbana, University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  9. Lescure, J., S. Renous and J.-P. Gasc (1986). Proposition d'une nouvelle classification des ampibiens gymnophiones. Soc. Zool. France Mem. 43: 145–177.Google Scholar
  10. Nussbaum, R.A. (1979). The taxonomic status of the caecilian genusUraeotyphlus Peters. Occ. Pap. Mus. Zool. Univ. Michigan 687: 1–20.Google Scholar
  11. Patterson, C. (1982). Morphological characters and homology. In: D.L. Hawksworth, ed., Prospects in Systematics. Oxford, Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  12. Patterson, C. (1988). Homology in classical and molecular biology. Mol. Biol. Evol. 5: 603–625.Google Scholar
  13. Sober, E. (1988). Reconstructing the Past. London, MIT Press.Google Scholar
  14. Wilkinson, M. (1991). The use of primitive character state distributions in the assessment of holophyly. Acta Biotheoretica 39: 37–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael F. Whiting
    • 1
  • Lawrence M. Kelly
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of EntomologyCornell UniversityIthacaUSA
  2. 2.L.H. Bailey HortoriumCornell UniversityIthacaUSA

Personalised recommendations