Phylogenetics Paraphyly

1 phylogenetics

1.1 relation monophyletic groups
1.2 examples of paraphyletic groups
1.3 paraphyly in species
1.4 uses paraphyletic groups
1.5 independently evolved traits
1.6 not paraphyly

phylogenetics

cladogram of primates, showing monophyly (the simians, in yellow), paraphyly (the prosimians, in blue, including red patch), , polyphyly (the night-active primates, lorises , tarsiers, in red).


relation monophyletic groups

groups include descendants of common ancestor said monophyletic. paraphyletic group monophyletic group 1 or more subsidiary clades (monophyletic groups) excluded form separate group. ereshefsky has argued paraphyletic taxa result of anagenesis in excluded group or groups. example, dinosaurs paraphyletic respect birds because birds possess many features dinosaurs lack , occupy distinctive niche.

a group identifying features evolved convergently in 2 or more lineages polyphyletic (greek πολύς [polys], many ). more broadly, taxon not paraphyletic or monophyletic can called polyphyletic.

these terms developed during debates of 1960s , 70s accompanying rise of cladistics.

examples of paraphyletic groups

wasps paraphyletic, consisting of clade apocrita without ants , bees, not considered wasps.



the prokaryotes (single-celled life forms without cell nuclei), because exclude eukaryotes, descendant group. bacteria , archaea prokaryotes, archaea , eukaryotes share common ancestor not ancestral bacteria. prokaryote/eukaryote distinction proposed edouard chatton in 1937 , accepted after being adopted roger stanier , c.b. van niel in 1962. botanical code (the icbn, icn) abandoned consideration of bacterial nomenclature in 1975; currently, prokaryotic nomenclature regulated under icnb starting date of january 1, 1980 (in contrast 1753 start date under icbn/icn).
dicotyledons (in traditional sense) paraphyletic because group excludes monocotyledons. dicotyledon has not been used icbn classification decades, allowed synonym of magnoliopsida. phylogenetic analysis indicates monocots development dicot ancestor. excluding monocots dicots makes latter paraphyletic group.
the order artiodactyla (even-toed ungulates), because excludes cetaceans (whales, dolphins, etc.). in iczn code, 2 taxa orders of equal rank. molecular studies, however, have shown cetacea descend artiodactyl ancestors, although precise phylogeny within order remains uncertain. without cetacean descendants artiodactyls must paraphyletic.
the class reptilia traditionally defined, because excludes birds (class aves) , mammals. in iczn code, 3 taxa classes of equal rank. however, mammals hail synapsids (which once described mammal-like reptiles ) , birds descended dinosaurs (a group of diapsida), both of reptiles.
alternatively, reptiles paraphyletic because gave rise (only) birds. birds , reptiles make sauropsids.
osteichthyes, bony fish, paraphyletic when include actinopterygii (ray-finned fish) , sarcopterygii (lungfish, etc.). however, tetrapods descendants of nearest common ancestor of actinopterygii , sarcopterygii, , tetrapods not in osteichthyes defined in way, group paraphyletic.
the wasps paraphyletic, consisting of narrow-waisted apocrita without ants , bees.





















































































































































































paraphyly in species

species have special status in systematics being observable feature of nature , basic unit of classification. phylogenetic species concept requires species monophyletic, paraphyletic species common in nature. paraphyly common in speciation, whereby mother species (a paraspecies) gives rise daughter species without becoming extinct. research indicates many 20 percent of animal species , between 20 , 50 percent of plant species paraphyletic. accounting these facts, taxonomists argue paraphyly trait of nature should acknowledged @ higher taxonomic levels. others argue retain monophyly in higher taxa, special status of species should excuse them monophyly prerequisite.

uses paraphyletic groups

when appearance of significant traits has led subclade on evolutionary path divergent of more inclusive clade, makes sense study paraphyletic group remains without considering larger clade. example, neogene evolution of artiodactyla (even-toed ungulates, deer) has taken place in environment different of cetacea (whales, dolphins, , porpoises) artiodactyla studied in isolation though cetaceans descendant group. prokaryote group example; paraphyletic because excludes many of descendant organisms (the eukaryotes), useful because has defined , significant distinction (absence of cell nucleus, plesiomorphy) excluded descendants.

also, paraphyletic groups involved in evolutionary transitions, development of first tetrapods ancestors example. name given these ancestors distinguish them tetrapods— fish , example—necessarily picks out paraphyletic group, because descendant tetrapods not included.

the term evolutionary grade used paraphyletic groups.

independently evolved traits

vivipary, production of offspring without laying of fertilized egg, developed independently in lineages led humans (homo sapiens) , southern water skinks (eulampus tympanum, kind of lizard). put way, @ least 1 of lineages led these species last common ancestor contains nonviviparous animals, pelycosaurs ancestral mammals; vivipary appeared subsequently in mammal lineage.

independently-developed traits these cannot used distinguish paraphyletic groups because paraphyly requires excluded groups monophyletic. pelycosaurs descended last common ancestor of skinks , humans, vivipary paraphyletic if pelycosaurs part of excluded monophyletic group. because group monophyletic, contains descendents of pelycosaurs; because excluded, contains no viviparous animals. not work, because humans among these descendents. vivipary in group includes humans , skinks cannot paraphyletic.

not paraphyly

amphibious fish polyphyletic, not paraphyletic. although appear similar, several different groups of amphibious fishes such mudskippers , lungfishes evolved independently in process of convergent evolution in distant relatives faced similar ecological circumstances.
flightless birds polyphyletic because independently (in parallel) lost ability fly.
animals dorsal fin not paraphyletic, though last common ancestor may have had such fin, because mesozoic ancestors of porpoises did not have such fin, whereas pre-mesozoic fish did have one.
quadrupedal archosaurs not paraphyletic group. bipedal dinosaurs eoraptor, ancestral quadrupedal ones, descendants of last common ancestor of quadrupedal dinosaurs , other quadrupedal archosaurs crocodilians.




^ roberts, keith (2007-12-10). handbook of plant science. isbn 9780470057230. 
^ sapp, jan (june 2005). prokaryote–eukaryote dichotomy: meanings , mythology . microbiology , molecular biology reviews. 69 (2): 292–305. doi:10.1128/mmbr.69.2.292-305.2005. pmc 1197417 . pmid 15944457. 
^ stackebrabdt, e.; tindell, b.; ludwig, w.; goodfellow, m. (1999). prokaryotic diversity , systematics . in lengeler, joseph w.; drews, gerhart; schlegel, hans günter. biology of prokaryotes. stuttgart: georg thieme verlag. p. 679. 
^ simpson 2006, pp. 139–140. thought possession of 2 cotyledons ancestral feature taxa of flowering plants , not apomorphy group within. dicots ... paraphyletic ....
^ o leary, maureen a. (2001). phylogenetic position of cetaceans: further combined data analyses, comparisons stratigraphic record , discussion of character optimization . american zoologist. 41 (3): 487–506. doi:10.1093/icb/41.3.487. 
^ romer, a. s. & parsons, t. s. (1985): vertebrate body. (6th ed.) saunders, philadelphia.
^ tree of life
^ johnson, brian r.; borowiec, marek l.; chiu, joanna c.; lee, ernest k.; atallah, joel; ward, philip s. (2013). phylogenomics resolves evolutionary relationships among ants, bees, , wasps (pdf). current biology. 23 (20): 2058–2062. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2013.08.050. pmid 24094856. 
^ berg, linda (2008). introductory botany: plants, people, , environment (2nd ed.). belmont ca: thomson corporation. p. 360. isbn 0-03-075453-4. 
^ o leary, maureen a. (2001). phylogenetic position of cetaceans: further combined data analyses, comparisons stratigraphic record , discussion of character optimization . american zoologist. 41 (3): 487–506. doi:10.1093/icb/41.3.487. 
^ savage, r. j. g. & long, m. r. (1986). mammal evolution: illustrated guide. new york: facts on file. p. 208. isbn 0-8160-1194-x. 
^ kielan-jaworowska, z. & hurum, j. (2001). phylogeny , systematics of multituberculate animals . palaeontology. 44 (3): 389–429. doi:10.1111/1475-4983.00185. 
^ tudge, colin (2000). variety of life. oxford university press. isbn 0198604262. 
^ david r. andrew (2011). new view of insect–crustacean relationships ii. inferences expressed sequence tags , comparisons neural cladistics . arthropod structure & development. 40 (3): 289–302. doi:10.1016/j.asd.2011.02.001. 
^ bjoern, m.; von reumont, ronald a.; jenner, matthew a.; wills, emiliano; dell ampio, günther; pass, ingo; ebersberger, benjamin; meyer, stefan; koenemann, thomas m. iliffe (2012). pancrustacean phylogeny in light of new phylogenomic data: support remipedia possible sister group of hexapoda (pdf proofs). molecular biology , evolution. 29 (3): 1031–1045. doi:10.1093/molbev/msr270. pmid 22049065. 
^ queiroz, kevin; donoghue, michael j. (december 1988). phylogenetic systematics , species problem . cladistics. 4 (4): 317–338. doi:10.1111/j.1096-0031.1988.tb00518.x. retrieved 21 january 2015. 
^ james s. albert; roberto e. reis (8 march 2011). historical biogeography of neotropical freshwater fishes. university of california press. p. 308. isbn 9780520268685. retrieved 28 june 2011. 
^ ross, howard a. (july 2014). incidence of species-level paraphyly in animals: re-assessment . molecular phylogenetics , evolution. 76: 10–17. doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2014.02.021. pmid 24583289. 
^ crisp, m.d,; chandler, g.t. (1 july 1996). paraphyletic species . telopea. 6 (4): 813–844. doi:10.7751/telopea19963037. retrieved 22 january 2015. 
^ zander, richard (2013). framework post-phylogenetic systematics. st. louis: zetetic publications, amazon createspace. 
^ aubert, d (2015). formal analysis of phylogenetic terminology: towards reconsideration of current paradigm in systematics . phytoneuron. 66: 1–54. 
^ kazlev, m.a. & white, t. amphibians, systematics, , cladistics . palaeos website. retrieved 16 august 2012. 
^ dawkins, richard (2004). mammal-like reptiles . ancestor s tale, pilgrimage dawn of life. boston: houghton mifflin company. isbn 0-618-00583-8. 
^ kutschera, ulrich; elliott, j malcolm (26 march 2013). mudskippers , lungfishes elucidate evolution of four-limbed vertebrates? . evolution: education , outreach. 6 (8): 8. doi:10.1186/1936-6434-6-8. 
^ harshman, john; braun, edward l.; et al. (2 september 2008). phylogenomic evidence multiple losses of flight in ratite birds . pnas. 105 (36): 13462–13467. bibcode:2008pnas..10513462h. doi:10.1073/pnas.0803242105. pmc 2533212 . pmid 18765814. 

cite error: there <ref group=note> tags on page, references not show without {{reflist|group=note}} template (see page).