Abstract
Recent work by Farris (1977, 1979a, 1979b, 1980) has provided an explicit, logical definition of information content and contrasts different classification approaches based upon this concept. However, his conclusion that the use of parsimonious trees that are nested monophyletic groups (phylogenetic analysis) is a necessary consequence of the goal of maximal information content can be questioned. As an alternative, the possible use of paraphyletic groups is considered. Evolutionary taxonomists have proposed the use of alternatives to monophyletic (sensu Hennig 1966) groups with the justification that such groups should lead to classifications with greater predictivity or information content (e.g. Ashlock 1979; Mayr 1981). In this study the definitions of paraphyly of Faith (1982) are related to Farris’ (1977) criterion of information content, in order to evaluate the potential of paraphyletic groups as separate taxa. Paraphyly can be defined in terms of two types of distinguishing characters. In both cases, the group in question (call it ‘G’) is distinguished in the data set by having one state for a set of binary characters. This distinction is understood in the context of the overall monophyletic group that minimally includes the members of G.
Keywords
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Ashlock, P.D. 1979. An evolutionary systematicist’s view of classification. Syst. Zool. 28: 441–450.
Faith, D.P. 1983. Parsimony and paraphyly. in this volume.
Farris, J.S. 1977. On the phenetic approach to vertebrate classification. In Hecht, M.K., P.C. Goody and B.M. Hect (eds.), Major patterns in vertebrate evolution. NATO Advanced Study Institute Series, no. 14, Plenum Press, New York, pp. 823–850.
Farris, J.S. 1979a. On the naturalness of phylogenetic classification. Syst. Zool. 28: 200–214.
Farris, J.S. 1979b. The information content of the phylogenetic system. Syst. Zool. 28: 483–519.
Farris, J.S. 1980. The efficient diagnoses of the phylogenetic system. Syst. Zool. 29: 386–401.
Hennig, W. 1966. Phylogenetic Systematics. Univ. Illinois Press. Urbana 263 p.
Mayr, E. 1981. Biological classification: Towards a synthesis of opposing methodologies. Science 214: 510–516.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1983 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Faith, D.P. (1983). Information Content and Most Parsimonious Trees. In: Felsenstein, J. (eds) Numerical Taxonomy. NATO ASI Series, vol 1. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-69024-2_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-69024-2_15
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-69026-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-69024-2
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive