Synamorphy, monophyly, and cladistic analysis: A reply to Wilkinson
- 26 Downloads
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.
KeywordsCharacter State Cladistic Analysis Plesiomorphic State Transformation Series Hypothetical Tree
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Duellman, W.E. and L. Treub (1986). Biology of Amphibians. New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company.Google Scholar
- 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
- Hennig, W. (1966). Phylogenetic Systematics. Urbana, University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
- 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
- Nussbaum, R.A. (1979). The taxonomic status of the caecilian genusUraeotyphlus Peters. Occ. Pap. Mus. Zool. Univ. Michigan 687: 1–20.Google Scholar
- Patterson, C. (1982). Morphological characters and homology. In: D.L. Hawksworth, ed., Prospects in Systematics. Oxford, Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
- Patterson, C. (1988). Homology in classical and molecular biology. Mol. Biol. Evol. 5: 603–625.Google Scholar
- Sober, E. (1988). Reconstructing the Past. London, MIT Press.Google Scholar