Systematic Zoology Research Articles

VOLUME CONTENTS

Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary ResearchVolume 45, Issue 4 p. 385-387 VOLUME CONTENTS First published: 17 October 2007 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0469.2007.00450.xAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Volume45, Issue4November 2007Pages 385-387 RelatedInformation

A new cladistics of cladists

Cladistics, also known as phylogenetic systematics, is an approach to systematics developed during the 20th century. Many of its basic concepts were formulated by Hennig (1950), though it then passed through important changes, especially during the last four decades (Platnick 1979; Nelson and Platnick 1981; Brady 1982, 1984) During this time contributions to specialized journals such as Systematic Zoology (currently Systematic Biology) and Cladistics have demonstrated the emergence of cladistics as a new and exciting field, with articles by Daniel Brooks, Joel Cracraft, James S. Farris, Arnold Kluge, Mary Mickevich, Gareth Nelson, Norman Platnick and Ed Wiley, among others, tackling important theoretical and methodological issues in systematics. The ‘systematics wars’ of 20 years ago, chronicled by Hull (1988), were a cause celebre. Hennigian cladists, transformed cladists, pattern cladists and pheneticists fought out the ‘cladistic revolution’. James Carpenter, in what he described as a ‘‘parody of a study’’ (Carpenter 1987, p. 374), presented a fascinating insight into how a cladist might classify systematists during a time when cladistics was undergoing, or appeared to be undergoing, an intellectual revolution. He created a binary matrix of 40 systematists and philosophers of science and 14 characters. The resulting cladogram supported none of the previously recognised groups or ‘‘schools’’. Why? With hindsight, it seems that characters such as ‘‘conference’’, ‘‘computers’’, ‘‘Popperian’’ or ‘‘punc eq’’ were not altogether appropriate.

Book Reviews

Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary ResearchVolume 45, Issue 3 p. 283-283 Book Reviews W. Westheide, W. Westheide Osnabrückwestheide@biologie.uni-osnabrueck.deSearch for more papers by this author W. Westheide, W. Westheide Osnabrückwestheide@biologie.uni-osnabrueck.deSearch for more papers by this author First published: 23 July 2007 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0469.2007.00416.xRead the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume45, Issue3August 2007Pages 283-283 RelatedInformation

Book Reviews

Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary ResearchVolume 45, Issue 3 p. 284-284 Book Reviews W. Westheide, W. Westheide Osnabrückwestheide@biologie.uni-osnabrueck.deSearch for more papers by this author W. Westheide, W. Westheide Osnabrückwestheide@biologie.uni-osnabrueck.deSearch for more papers by this author First published: 23 July 2007 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0469.2007.00417.xRead the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume45, Issue3August 2007Pages 284-284 RelatedInformation

Book Reviews

Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary ResearchVolume 45, Issue 3 p. 282-283 Book Reviews Alexander Haas, Alexander Haas Hamburgalexander.haas@uni-hamburg.deSearch for more papers by this author Alexander Haas, Alexander Haas Hamburgalexander.haas@uni-hamburg.deSearch for more papers by this author First published: 23 July 2007 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0469.2007.00414.xCitations: 1Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article.Citing Literature Volume45, Issue3August 2007Pages 282-283 RelatedInformation

Book Review

Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary ResearchVolume 45, Issue 2 p. 173-174 Book Review P. M. Sander, P. M. Sander Bonnmartin.sander@uni-bonn.deSearch for more papers by this author P. M. Sander, P. M. Sander Bonnmartin.sander@uni-bonn.deSearch for more papers by this author First published: 11 April 2007 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0469.2006.00362.xRead the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume45, Issue2May 2007Pages 173-174 RelatedInformation

VOLUME CONTENTS

Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary ResearchVolume 44, Issue 4 p. 353-355 VOLUME CONTENTS First published: 25 September 2006 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0469.2006.00385.xAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Volume44, Issue4November 2006Pages 353-355 RelatedInformation

Book Reviews: The Laboratory Primate. The Handbook of Experimental Animals

Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary ResearchVolume 44, Issue 4 p. 352-352 Book Reviews: The Laboratory Primate. The Handbook of Experimental Animals M. Schmidt, M. Schmidt Jenaeschmidt.manuela@uni-jena.deSearch for more papers by this author M. Schmidt, M. Schmidt Jenaeschmidt.manuela@uni-jena.deSearch for more papers by this author First published: 25 September 2006 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0469.2006.00364.xRead the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume44, Issue4November 2006Pages 352-352 RelatedInformation

The evolution of North American Rhinoceroses

Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary ResearchVolume 44, Issue 3 p. 262-263 The evolution of North American Rhinoceroses M.S. Fischer, M.S. Fischer Jena fischer@pan.zoo.uni-jena.deSearch for more papers by this author M.S. Fischer, M.S. Fischer Jena fischer@pan.zoo.uni-jena.deSearch for more papers by this author First published: 20 July 2006 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0469.2005.00342.xRead the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume44, Issue3August 2006Pages 262-263 RelatedInformation

Monograph of the Gomphodesmidae, a Family of African Polydesmoid Millipeds

Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary ResearchVolume 44, Issue 3 p. 260-260 Monograph of the Gomphodesmidae, a Family of African Polydesmoid Millipeds A. Minelli, A. Minelli Padova Alessandro.minelli@unipd.itSearch for more papers by this author A. Minelli, A. Minelli Padova Alessandro.minelli@unipd.itSearch for more papers by this author First published: 20 July 2006 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0469.2005.00343.xRead the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume44, Issue3August 2006Pages 260-260 RelatedInformation

The ‘requirement of total evidence’ and its role in phylogenetic systematics

The question of whether or not to partition data for the purposes of inferring phylogenetic hypotheses remains controversial. Opinions have been especially divided since Kluge's (1989, Systematic Zoology 38, 7–25) claim that data partitioning violates the requirement of total evidence (RTE). Unfortunately, advocacy for or against the RTE has not been based on accurate portrayals of the requirement. The RTE is a basic maxim for non-deductive inference, stipulating that evidence must be considered if it has relevance to an inference. Evidence is relevant if it has a positive or negative effect on a given conclusion. In the case of ℈partitioned’ phylogenetic inferences, the RTE is violated, and the basis for rational belief in any conclusion is compromised, unless it is shown that the partitions are evidentially irrelevant to one another. The goal of phylogenetic systematics is to hypothesize past causal conditions to account for observed shared similarities among two or more species. Such inferences are non-deductive, necessitating consideration of the RTE. Some phylogeneticists claim the parsimony criterion as justification for the RTE. There is no relation between the two – parsimony is a relation between a hypothesis and causal question(s). Parsimony does not dictate the content of premises prior to an inference. ℈Taxonomic congruence,’ ℈supertrees,’ and ℈conditional combination’ methods violate the RTE. Taxonomic congruence and supertree methods also fail to achieve the intended goal of phylogenetic inference, such that ℈consensus trees’ and ℈supertrees’ lack an empirical basis. ℈Conditional combination’ is problematic because hypotheses derived from partitioned data cannot be compared – a causal hypothesis inferred to account for a set of effects only has relevance to those effects, not any comparative relevance to other causal hypotheses. A similar problem arises in the comparisons of hypotheses derived from different causal theories.

The first five years of Zootaxa

Zootaxa was founded in 2001 as a new print and online journal of systematic zoology. It was designed to help systematic zoologists to rapidly document and analyze world’s zoological diversity, which includes many undescribed species now threatened by the rapid loss of habitats. Overcoming the ‘taxonomic impediment’ by helping taxonomists to rapidly document world’s undescribed animals is Zootaxa’s main mission.

On the Spanning Ratio of Gabriel Graphs and beta-Skeletons

The spanning ratio of a graph defined on n points in the Euclidean plane is the maximum ratio over all pairs of data points (u,v) of the minimum graph distance between u and v divided by the Euclidean distance between u and v. A connected graph is said to be an S-spanner if the spanning ratio does not exceed S. For example, for any S there exists a point set whose minimum spanning tree isnot an S-spanner. At the other end of the spectrum, a Delaunay triangulation is guaranteed to be a 2.42-spanner [J. M. Keil and C. A. Gutwin, Discrete Comput. Geom., 7 (1992), pp. 13-28]. For proximity graphs between these two extremes, such as Gabriel graphs [K. R. Gabriel and R. R. Sokal, Systematic Zoology, 18 (1969), pp. 259-278], relative neighborhood graphs [G. T. Toussaint, Pattern Recognition, 12 (1980), pp. 261-268], and $\beta$-skeletons [D. G. Kirkpatrick and J. D. Radke, Comput. Geom., G. T. Toussaint, ed., Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1985, pp. 217-248] with $\beta$ in [0,2] some interesting questions arise. We show that the spanning ratio for Gabriel graphs (which are $\beta$-skeletons with $\beta$ = 1) is $\Theta ( \sqrt{n})$ in the worst case. For all $\beta$-skeletons with $\beta$ in [0,1], we prove that the spanning ratio is at most $O(n^\gamma)$, where $\gamma = (1-\log_2(1+\sqrt{1-\beta^2}))/2$. For all $\beta$-skeletons with $\beta$ in [1,2], we prove that there exist point sets whose spanning ratio is at least $\left( \frac{1}{2} - o(1) \right) \sqrt{n} $. For relative neighborhood graphs [G. T. Toussaint, Pattern Recognition, 12 (1980), pp. 261-268] (skeletons with $\beta$ = 2), we show that there exist point sets where the spanning ratio is $\Omega(n)$. For points drawn independently from the uniform distribution on the unit square, we show that the spanning ratio of the (random) Gabriel graph and all $\beta$-skeletons with $\beta$ in [1,2] tends to $\infty$ in probability as $\sqrt{\log n / \log \log n}$.

Milestones in Systematics

Setting Up Milestones: Sneath on Adanson and Mayr on Darwin, M.P. Winsor Launching the Society of Systematic Zoology in 1947, J. Cain Explanations in Systematics, W.J. Bock What Happens When the Language of Science Threatens to Break Down in Systematics - A Popperian Perspective, O. Rieppel Hennig's 'Phylogenetic Systematics' Brought up to Date, J.-W. Wagele Cladistics: Its Arrested Development, G. Nelson Systematics and Paleontology, P.L. Forey Parsimony and Computer, A.W.F. Edwards Homologues and Homology, Phenetics and Cladistics: 150 Years of Progress, D.M. Williams From Dispersal to Geographic Congruence: Comments on Cladistic Biogeography in the 20th Century, C.J. Humphries The Fall and Rise of Evolutionary Developmental Biology, P.W.H. Holland

Book Reviews

Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary ResearchVolume 43, Issue 4 p. 343-344 Book Reviews A. Minelli, A. Minelli PadovaSearch for more papers by this author A. Minelli, A. Minelli PadovaSearch for more papers by this author First published: 20 October 2005 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0469.2005.00320.xRead the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume43, Issue4November 2005Pages 343-344 RelatedInformation

Aplacophoran Mollusca in the Natural History Museum Berlin. An annotated catalogue of Thiele's type specimens, with a brief review of “Aplacophora” classification

Aplacophoran molluscs are a small, often neglected and still poorly known but phylogenetically important basal group, with taxa possessing morphological characters considered essential for the reconstruction of the basal Mollusca and their evolution. Currently, in most textbooks of zoology and major malacological treatise Solenogastres and Caudofoveata are viewed as constituting a monophyletic clade called Aplacophora Von Ihering, 1876, although evidence is available to the contrary, suggesting the latter to be a paraphyletic grade. Accordingly, the hitherto accepted “Aplacophora” may consist of two Recent, diphyletic taxa, viz. Solenogastres Gegenbaur, 1878 (sensu Simroth, 1893) or Neomeniomorpha Pelseneer, 1906 (also called Ventroplicida Boettger, 1955) and Caudofoveata Boettger, 1955 or Chaetodermomorpha Pelseneer, 1906. The Museum of Natural History Berlin (formerly Zoological Museum Berlin, ZMB) houses rich type material essentially of Solenogastres on which to a substantial degree the preeminent German malacologist Johannes Thiele (1860–1935), working as curator in this collection from 1905 on, has based his respective systematic accounts of that time. A review given here briefly outlines the historical development of knowledge on the systematics and phylogeny of aplacophoran molluscs allowing two conclusions: First, that evidendently Thiele struggled with the very same problems of molluscan classification as we still do more than a century of zoological systematics later; and second, that Thiele's erroneous assumption of Solenogastres being closely related to annelids rather than molluscs resulted in the deposition of aplacophoran material of the ZMB (and hence the late re-discovery of it) in the “Vermes” department, then initiating this annotated type catalogue. Here we provide information on a total of 31 aplacophoran taxa in the ZMB, including notes on type specimens and localities, their original description and current systematic placement. The majority (i.e. 25 taxa) are represented by types, essentially being named by Thiele in 23 cases. With the exception of one caudofoveate, all these aplacophoran molluscs in the ZMB are Solenogastres. Following recent classification they are assigned to 20 genera. The type material was mainly collected by German imperial expeditions, which are briefly reviewed, in particular the First German South Polar Expedition on board of the sailing vessel “Gauss”, 1901–1903, with a total of 15 new aplacophoran species, all from the very same type locality near the Antarctic Gaussberg volcano at 66°2′S, 89°38′E, collected by the expedition's biologist Ernst Vanhoffen. (© 2005 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim)

Book Reviews

Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary ResearchVolume 43, Issue 3 p. 269-270 Book Reviews M. Schmidt, M. Schmidt JenaSearch for more papers by this author M. Schmidt, M. Schmidt JenaSearch for more papers by this author First published: 25 July 2005 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0469.2005.00303.xCitations: 1Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article.Citing Literature Volume43, Issue3August 2005Pages 269-270 RelatedInformation

Book Review/Buchbersprechungen

Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary ResearchVolume 43, Issue 3 p. 270-271 Book Review/Buchbersprechungen A. Lametschwandtner, A. Lametschwandtner SalzburgSearch for more papers by this author A. Lametschwandtner, A. Lametschwandtner SalzburgSearch for more papers by this author First published: 15 June 2005 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0469.2005.00310.xRead the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume43, Issue3August 2005Pages 270-271 RelatedInformation

Notice from Chief Editor

The first issue of Zootaxa was published on 28 May 2001. On 27 May 2005, Zootaxa 1000 was published. In four years, over 1100 authors from all over the world had published 1000 papers/monographs in more than 23000 pages. Papers range from 4 to 1295 pages. Most papers were published within one month after acceptance by editors. Zootaxa has established itself as a major international journal in systematic zoology.

Some Notes on the Founding of the Japanese Society of Systematic Zoology

Some Notes on the Founding of the Japanese Society of Systematic Zoology