Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Molecules vs Morphology

  • Chapter
Molecular Tools for Screening Biodiversity

Abstract

During the last decade there has been a debate amongst systematists about the adequacy of morphological as opposed to molecular data for the reconstruction of phylogenies (1–6). When large amounts of molecular data began to appear the main concern amongst morphologists was that the great number of characters which molecules might potentially produce would be out of proportion to the more limited number of morphological characters available. Conversely, some scientists regard molecular data as definitive, having the potential to resolve all problems that could not be solved using morphological information and taking precedence over morphological data in disputed hypotheses (7–9).

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Donoghue MJ, Sanderson MJ (1991) “The suitability of molecular and morphological evidence in reconstructing plant phylogeny”. In: Soltis PS, Soltis DE, Doyle JJ (eds) Molecular Systematics of Plants. Chapman and Hall, New York, pp 340–368.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Fernholm B, Bremer K, Jörnvall H (1989) The Hierarchy of Life. Elsevier, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Hillis DM (1987) Molecular versus morphological approaches to systematics. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 18: 23–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Novacek MJ (1994) “Morphological and molecular inroads to phylogeny”. In: Grande L, Rieppel O (eds) Interpreting the hierarchy of nature. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 85–131.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Patterson C (1987) Molecules and morphology in evolution: Conflict or compromise. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Patterson C, Williams DM, Humphries CJ (1993) Congruence between molecular and morphological phylogenies. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 24: 153–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Sibley CG, Ahlquist JE (1987) “Avian phylogeny reconstructed from comparisons of the genetic material”. In: Patterson C (ed) Molecules and morphology in evolution: Conflict or compromise. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 95–121.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Sytsma KJ, Smith JF, Berry PE (1991) Biogeography and evolution of morphology, breeding systems, flavonoids, and chloroplast DNA. Systematic Botany 16: 257–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Turbeville JM, Field KG, Raff RA (1992) Phylogenetic position of phylum Nemertini, inferred from 18S rRNA sequences: Molecular data as a test of morphological character homology. Molecular and Biological Evolution 9: 235–249.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Patterson C (1988) Homology in classical and molecular biology. Molecular and Biological Evolution 5: 603–625.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Albert VA, Backhand A, Bremer K (1994) “DNA characters and cladistics: the optimization of functional history”. In: Scotland RW, Siebert DJ, Williams DM (eds) Models in phylogeny reconstruction. Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp 249–272.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Sanderson MJ, Donoghue MJ (1989) Patterns of variation in levels of homoplasy. Evolution 43: 1781–1795.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Huelsenbeck JP, Hillis DM (1993) Success of phylogenetic methods in the four-taxon case. Systematic Biology 42: 247–264.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Wheeler WC, Honeycutt RL (1988) Paired sequence difference in ribosomal RNAs: Evolutionary and phylogenetic implications. Molecular and Biological Evolution 5: 90–96.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Hillis DM, Dixon MT (1991) Ribosomal DNA: molecular evolution and phylogenetic interference. The Quarterly Review of Biology 66: 411–453.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Smith AB (1989) RNA sequence data in phylogenetic reconstruction: testing the limits of its resolution. Cladistics 5: 321–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Doyle JJ (1992) Gene trees and species trees: molecular systematics as one-character taxonomy. Systematic Botany 17: 144–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Barrett MJ, Donoghue MJ, Sober E (1991) Against consensus. Systematic Zoology 40: 486–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Bull JJ, Huelsenbeck JP, Cunningham CW, Swofford DL, Waddell PJ (1993) Partitioning and combining data in phylogenetic analysis. Systematic Biology 42: 384–397.

    Google Scholar 

  20. de Queiroz A, Donoghue MJ, Kim J (1995) Separate versus combined analysis of phylogenetic evidence. Annual Review of Ecolology and Systematics 26: 657–681.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Eernisse DJ, Kluge AG (1993) Taxonomic congruence versus total evidence, and Amniote phylogeny inferred from fossils, molecules, and morphology. Molecular and Biological Evolution 10: 1170–1195.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Farris JS, Källersjö M, Kluge AG, Bult C (1994) Testing significance of incongruence. Cladistics 10: 315–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Kluge AG, Wolf AJ (1993) Cladistics: What’s in a word? Cladistics 9: 183–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Miyamoto MM (1985) Consensus cladograms and general classifications. Cladistics 1: 186–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Miyamoto MM, Fitch WM (1995) Testing species phylogenies and phylogenetic methods with congruence. Systematic Biology 44: 64–76.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Page RDM (1996) On consensus, confidence, and “total evidence”. Cladistics 12: 83–92.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Swofford D (1991) When are phylogeny estimates from molecular and morphological data incongruent? In: Miyamoto MM, Cracraft J (eds) Phylogenetic analysis of DNA sequences. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 295–333.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Farris JS, Albert VA, Källersjö M, Lipscomb D, Kluge AG (1996) Parsimony jackknifing outperforms neighbor-joining. Cladistics 12: 99–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Vane-Wright RI, Schulz S, Boppré M (1992) The cladistics of Amauris butterflies: congruence, consensus and total evidence. Cladistics 8: 125–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Donoghue MJ, Doyle JA, Gauthier J, Kluge AG, Rowe T (1989) The importance of fossils in phylogeny reconstruction. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 20: 431–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Seberg O, Petersen G, Baden C (1996) “The phylogeny of Psathyrostachys (Triticeae, Poaceae) — Are we able to see the wood for the trees?” In: Wang RR-C, Jensen KB, Jaussi C (eds) Proceedings of the 2nd International Triticeae Conference. Utah State University Press, pp. 247–253.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Rieppel O, Grande L (1994) “Summary and comments on systematic pattern and evolutionary process”. In: Grande L, Rieppel O (eds) Interpreting the hierarchy of nature. Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 227–255.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Hillis DM, Bull JJ, White ME, Badgett MR, Molineux IJ (1992) Experimental phylogenetics: Generation of a known phylogeny. Science 255: 589–592.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Gitte Petersen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ole Seberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. IACR-Long Ashton Research Station, Department of Agricultural Sciences, University of Bristol, UK

    Angela Karp

  2. Agrogene SA, Moissy Cramayel, France

    Peter G. Isaac

  3. Regius Keeper of the Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh, UK

    David S. Ingram

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1998 Chapman & Hall

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Petersen, G., Seberg, O. (1998). Molecules vs Morphology. In: Karp, A., Isaac, P.G., Ingram, D.S. (eds) Molecular Tools for Screening Biodiversity. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-0019-6_65

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-0019-6_65

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-010-6496-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-009-0019-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation