Abstract
One of the main goals of systematics is to reconstruct the tree of life. Half a century ago, the breakthrough of cladistics was a major step towards this objective because it allowed us to assess relatedness patterns among species, an abstract kind of relationship. Unfortunately, the philosophy of cladism forbade to go further and to seek more realistic relationships, like the ancestor-descendant relationship, which is the expected fundamental kind of relationship of the tree of life according to Darwinian evolution. Here, I describe a simple parsimony-based procedure which can be used to transform a classical cladogram into a genuine phylogenetic tree, i.e. a caulogram. It consists in deleting as many unobserved and unnamed nodes as possible and replacing them with observed and named species. A new Bayesian non-stochastic weighting scheme is used to assess character reliability for both this procedure and classical cladogram construction. I illustrate the whole process by assessing the relationships between the species of the moss genus Didymodon sensu lato (Pottiaceae) and discuss the resulting caulogram by confronting it with the previous methodology from the evolutionary literature. I finally argue that strictly adhering to cladist epistemology is untenable and that we must seek new formal methods to find ancestral species as well as ancestral higher taxa.
Highlights
IntroductionCladistics has aimed to resolve the relationships between species (Hennig, 1950, 1966)
Background and MotivationSince the sixties, cladistics has aimed to resolve the relationships between species (Hennig, 1950, 1966)
This second type of relationship is misleadingly represented as a false sister-group relationship (SGR) through the artificial introduction of unobserved species on internal nodes if a cladogram is interpreted as a true phylogenetic tree or caulogram
Summary
Cladistics has aimed to resolve the relationships between species (Hennig, 1950, 1966) These relationships are depicted by cladograms, i.e. hierarchical treelike diagrams where clusters show which two of any three species are more closely related to each other than either is to the third one (Hennig, 1966; Hull, 1979). This type of relationship is characterized as “relatedness” and is supposed to represent the relative recency of the “hypothetical last common ancestors” (or more rigorously the order of emergence of evolutionary novelties). Cladograms are ambiguous, not faithful pictures of evolutionary history
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.