[Taxacom] Defining polyphyly

Wed Dec 15 15:21:46 CST 2010

the point is that some apparently monophyletic groups may be paraphyletic 
because the excluded group has the synapomorphy transformed or reversed, and 
this possibility should be considered in all cases. *Suppose for the sake of 
argument* that reptiles all had a unique and complex type of scale. This would 
tend to indicate that they were a monophyletic group, but *it is possible* that 
these scales were transformed beyond recognition into feathers and fur, in which 
case reptiles would still be paraphyletic. My point is that for lots of rather 
character poor taxa, this sort of thing could happen, and it would be difficult 
to detect, that's all ...

Stephen

________________________________
From: John Grehan <jgrehan at sciencebuff.org>
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Sent: Thu, 16 December, 2010 9:37:33 AM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Defining polyphyly

There are no synapomorphies defining great apes since great apes do not
exist as a monophyletic group without hominids.

Paraphyly should be considered for what?

John Grehan

________________________________

From: Stephen Thorpe [mailto:stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 3:25 PM
To: John Grehan; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Defining polyphyly

>But hominids do share the synapomorphies that encompass great apes and
hominids

Yes, obviously, but hominids don't have the synapomorphies that define
great apes (or rather they do, but they have been transformed)

a better example is fish ... to simplify the example somewhat: fish are
not just non-tetrapod vertebrates, they have positive features of their
own, e.g., fins, which tetrapods don't have. However, 'vertebrates with
fins' is paraphyletic because tetrapods have lost their fins ...

My point is just that paraphyly of this kind should always be considered
...

Stephen

________________________________

From: John Grehan <jgrehan at sciencebuff.org>
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Sent: Thu, 16 December, 2010 2:14:16 AM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Defining polyphyly

No, the excluded subgroup still have the synapomorphies of the node that
includes that and the others that are made paraphyletic by their
exclusion. For example, great apes exist as a group by virtue of
excluding hominids (living and extinct humans and fossils more closely
related to humans than any great ape). But hominids do share the
synapomorphies that encompass great apes and hominids.

John Grehan

-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
[mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Stephen Thorpe
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2010 9:11 PM
To: Kenneth Kinman; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Defining polyphyly

another way to understand it is this: 
a polyphyletic group is defined by homoplasies (or even just characters
shared 
by virtue of parallel evolution), but a paraphyletic group, while
defined by 
true synapomorphies, excludes a subgroup(s) which lack the
synapomorphies due to 
reversal or other transformation ...

Stephen

________________________________
From: Kenneth Kinman <kennethkinman at webtv.net>
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Sent: Wed, 15 December, 2010 12:55:57 PM
Subject: [Taxacom] Defining polyphyly

Dear All, 
        As I said in my last post, I agreed with how
Chris defined a paraphyletic group (specifically, a singly paraphyletic
group). However, I think that he misspoke in defining a polyphyletic
group as "clade A minus clades B. C., etc." Actually that defines a
paraphyletic group with multiple exgroups (doubly paraphyletic, etc.).
But if you then combine those exgroups together, you do get a
polyphyletic group. Creating a paraphyletic group is a subtractive
process, while creating a polyphyletic group is an unnatural additive
process.            
            For instance, Class Reptilia is a
doubly paraphyletic group: Clade A (Amniota) minus Clades B and C
(exgroups Aves and Mammalia). However, if you combine the two exgroups
(B plus C), you do get a polyphyletic taxon (namely Haemothermia).
Polyphyletic taxa are unnatural, while paraphyletic and holophyletic
taxa are natural. 
                    ----------Ken            
---------------------------------------------- 
Chris Thompson wrote: 
      Not exactly as a paraphyletic group is merely clade A
minus clade B. A polyphletic group is merely clade A minus clades B, C,
etc. So, it is not argument by authority. 

_______________________________________________

Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom

The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of
these 
methods:

(1) http://taxacom.markmail.org <http://taxacom.markmail.org/> 

Or (2) a Google search specified as:
site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  
your search terms here

_______________________________________________

Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom

The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of
these methods:

(1) http://taxacom.markmail.org <http://taxacom.markmail.org/> 

Or (2) a Google search specified as:
site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here

_______________________________________________

Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom

The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of
these methods:

(1) http://taxacom.markmail.org <http://taxacom.markmail.org/> 

Or (2) a Google search specified as:
site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here

_______________________________________________

Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom

The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these 
methods:

(1) http://taxacom.markmail.org

Or (2) a Google search specified as:  site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  
your search terms here