[Taxacom] Paraphyletic groups as natural units of biological classification

[John Grehan]

Ken,



Thanks for the clarification. Hörandl & Stuessy say that “many workers have
reacted so negatively to any attempt to include paraphyletic groups in
classification that conflicts have begun to arise. A good case in point is
the recent cladistic classification of the angiosperms (Chase & Reveal,
2009), in which paraphyletic groups such as the basal angiosperms (Stuessy,
2010) are not included.” So I am I correct to understand from your comment
that cladists (Chase & Reveal) accepted excluded the creation of a
paraphyletic group as a phylogenetic entity?

John Grehan

On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 8:52 PM, Kenneth Kinman <kinman at hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> Dear All,                         I was just rereading a 2010 paper by
> Horandl and Stuessy (published in the journal Taxon).  It should be
> required reading in any systematics course.  Below is the abstract.
>               --------------------Ken
> Hörandl, E. & Stuessy, T.F.  2010.  Paraphyletic groups as natural units
> ofbiological classification.  Taxon 59: 1641-1653.
>
> ABSTRACT:
> Despite the broad acceptance of phylogenetic principles in
> biologicalclassification, a fundamental question still exists on how to
> classifyparaphyletic groups. Much of the controversy appears due to (1)
> historicalshifts in terminology and definitions, (2) neglect of focusing on
> evolutionaryprocesses for understanding origins of natural taxa, (3) a
> narrow perspective ondimensions involved with reconstructing phylogeny, and
> (4) acceptance of lowerlevels of information content and practicability as
> a trade-off for ease ofarriving at formal classifications. Monophyly in
> evolutionary biology originallyhad a broader definition, that of describing
> a group with common ancestry. Thisdefinition thus includes both
> paraphyletic and monophyletic groups in the senseof Hennig. We advocate
> returning to a broader definition, supporting use ofAshlock's term
> holophyly as replacement for monophyly s.str. By reviewingprocesses
> involved in the production of phylogenetic patterns (budding, merging,and
> splitting), we demonstrate that paraphyly is a natural transitional stage
> inthe evolution of taxa, and that it occurs regularly along with holophyly.
> When a new holophyletic group arises, it usually coexists for some time
> with itsparaphyletic stem group. Paraphyly and holophyly, therefore,
> representrelational and temporal evolutionary stages. Paraphyletic groups
> exist at alllevels of diversification in all kingdoms of eukaryotes, and
> they havetraditionally been recognized because of their descent-based
> similarity. Wereview different methodological approaches for recognition of
> monophyleticgroups s.l. (i.e., both holophyletic and paraphyletic), which
> are essential fordiscriminating from polyphyly that is unacceptable in
> classification. Forarriving at taxonomic decisions, natural processes,
> information content, andpracticability are essential criteria. We stress
> using shared descent as aprimary grouping principle, but also emphasize the
> importance of degrees ofdivergence plus similarity (cohesiveness of
> evolutionary features) as additionalcriteria for classification.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Celebrating 27 years of Taxacom in 2014.
>