Post on 13-May-2020
transcript
11/1/2016
1
Topic 04History of Plant Systematics & Classification
I. Primer on ClassificationA. Definition
‐process of organizing thoughts and ideas about the world around us.
I. Primer on ClassificationA. Definition
‐process of organizing thoughts and ideas about the world around us.
B. Primary Operations1. Grouping & Ranking
11/1/2016
2
DA BC DAB
DAB
CDB
C
DA B CE
EE
Grouping results in a horizontal or coordinate arrangement of objects or organisms.
objects or organisms.
DA BC DAB
DAB
CDB
C
DA B CE
EE
DA B
CD
AB
DA B C
D
B C DA B
C
Group CGroup B Group DGroup A
EEE
E
Group E
objects ororganisms.
Groups ofobjects ororganisms
Grouping results in a horizontal or coordinate arrangement of objects or organisms.
DA B
CD
AB
DA B C
D
B C DA B
C
Group CGroup B Group DGroup A
EEE
E
Group E
Grouping results in a horizontal or coordinate arrangement of objects or organisms.
groups have equal ranks or importance (e.g. species or genera, etc.)
11/1/2016
3
Genus 3Genus 2Genus 1
Family 2Family 1
Order
DA B
CD
AB
DA B C
D
B C DA B
C
Group CGroup B Group DGroup A
EEE
E
Group E
Ranking results in a vertical or hierarchical arrangement of those groups.
I. Primer on ClassificationA. Definition
‐process of organizing thoughts and ideas about the world around us.
B. Primary Operations1. Grouping & Ranking2. Universally found
‐from folk taxonomies to scientific classifications
I. Primer on ClassificationA. Definition
‐process of organizing thoughts and ideas about the world around us.
B. Primary Operations1. Grouping & Ranking2. Universally Found
C. Artificial vs. Natural Systems
11/1/2016
4
I. Primer on ClassificationA. Definition
‐process of organizing thoughts and ideas about the world around us.
B. Primary Operations1. Grouping & Ranking2. Universally Found
C. Artificial vs. Natural Systems1. AS have little basis in reality
I. Primer on ClassificationA. Definition
‐process of organizing thoughts and ideas about the world around us.
B. Primary Operations1. Grouping & Ranking2. Universally Found
C. Artificial vs. Natural Systems1. AS have little basis in reality
a. a priori decisions about which chars are used at 1st, 2nd, 3rd – order ranks, etc.
e.g. the number of legs
11/1/2016
5
e.g. the number of legs
Tetrapods
Bipods
Tripods
I. Primer on ClassificationA. Definition
‐process of organizing thoughts and ideas about the world around us.
B. Primary Operations1. Grouping & Ranking2. Universally Found
C. Artificial vs. Natural Systems1. AS have little basis in reality
a. a priori decisions about which chars are used at 1st, 2nd, 3rd – order ranks, etc.
b. Groups easy to recognizec. Little predictive powerd. Of limited utility
I. Primer on ClassificationA. Definition
‐process of organizing thoughts and ideas about the world around us.
B. Primary Operations1. Grouping & Ranking2. Universally Found
C. Artificial vs. Natural Systems1. AS have little basis in reality2. NS: meant to recognize “real” groups
a. a posteriori reasoning
11/1/2016
6
Group A
Group B
Group C
Group D
I. Primer on Classification
.2. NS: meant to recognize “real” groups
a. a posteriori reasoningb. Groups may be harder to recognize b/c no one character
used to delimit eachb. But have greater predictive power
II. The Early Days
Given name: Tyrtamus
Nicknames:
‘Theophrastus’ by Aristotle(theos, god, phrasis, declare or tell)
‘Father of Botany’ by Linnaeus
A. Theophrastus (ca. 371‐287 BC)
11/1/2016
7
II. The Early DaysA. Theophrastus (ca. 371‐287 BC)
Important Works: • De Historia Plantarum• De Causis Plantarum
(only Latin translations remain)
Characteristics:• Empirical approach to biology of plants• Primary subdivision based on habit• Subsidiary grps based on other chars• Fundamentally an AS.
Significance: • First systematic treatment of plants
II. The Early DaysA. TheophrastusB. Herbalists
1. Herbals
Characteristics: • Utilitarian compendiums of medicinal or useful plants where they grew,
what they look like, and how to use them• Artificial systems (primary subdivisions based on habit or use)
Significance:• Partial floras• Elements of modern floras: names of plants, where they grow, what
they look like (incl. illustrations)
II. The Early DaysA. TheophrastusB. Herbalists
1. Herbals2. Dioscorides (40‐90 AD)
11/1/2016
8
II. The Early DaysA. TheophrastusB. Herbalists
1. Herbals2. Dioscorides (40‐90 AD)
Important Work:• De Materia Medica
Characteristics: • Medicinal plants (ca. 600 spp)
of Roman Empire• Used Theophrastus’s system
Significance:• Partial Mediterranean flora• Promoted importance of knowing
plants and their names• Elements of modern floras:
names of plants, where they grow, what they look like (incl. illustrations)
• Used ca. 1500 yrs
De Materia Medica – Arabic translation from Spain (12-13th Century)Photo courtesy of PHGCOM.
Dill (anti-gas, indigestion soother) Cumin (parasites)
11/1/2016
9
II. The Early DaysA. TheophrastusB. Herbalists
1. Herbals2. Dioscorides (40‐90 AD)3. Others (15th‐17th century)
Important Works:• Various
Characteristics: • Utilitarian, partial floras.• Printed (printing press invented in 1440).
Significance:• Renaissance in botany ushered in by Age of Exploration• Widely and more economically distributed.• Herbals were repository for this information.
II. The Early DaysA. TheophrastusB. Herbalists
1. Herbals2. Dioscorides (40‐90 AD)3. Others (15th‐17th century)4. De La Cruz ( ? ‐ 1552 ‐ ?)
Martin de la Cruz• Aztec physician/botanist in Mexico (Spain)
Important Works:• Badianus Manuscript (translated from Nahuatl to Latin by Badiano)
Characteristics: • 250 medicinal spp of Aztec (Nahua)• Rediscovered in Vatican library in 1929, returned by Pope John Paul II in
1990.
Significance:• Earliest systematic record of Mexican (New World) flora, including
Nahuatl names and uses.
(Calliandra anomala; stalky cornsilk flower; Tlacoxiloxochitl)
For persistent cough.
-Drink juice of the root.-Mix some of juice with honey and smear on throat.
-Fls of this plus water were said to improve eyesight and heal ulcers.
11/1/2016
10
(Mixture including Pinus sp.)
For lightening strike.
-Drink made from lvs of a pine and other species.
(thistle, pepper)
For “Black Blood” (depression).
-Grind, cook in water. Add pearl, wolf’s liver and wine. Drink. Dance.
(Urtica chichicaztli; water-nettle)
For nose bleeds (Atzitzicaztli)
-Grind juice w/ salt in urine, milk. -Pour into nose to stop flow of blood.
11/1/2016
11
III. Pre-Linnaean TaxonomistsA. Caesalpino (1519‐1603)
• Tuscany, Italy• ‘First Taxonomist’
Important Works:• De Plantis Libri• Herbaria (both personal and
commissioned)
Characteristics: • 1500 spp of Italy and region• Principal grps based on habit• Subsidiary groupings by fr, seed, & fl chars
Significance:• Broke free of 1500 yrs of herbalism format• Natural subsidiary groups based on fr,
seed, and fl chars• Created some of the earliest herbaria
III. Pre-Linnaean TaxonomistsB. Ray (1628‐1705)
• British
Important Works:• Synopsis Methodica Stirpium Brittannicarum• Historia Plantarum
Characteristics: • First British flora• Classification of 18,000:
HerbaeImperfectae (Free‐sporing “cryptogams”)Perfectae (Seed Plants)
MonocotyledonsDicotyledons
ArboraeMonocotyledonsDicotyledons
Significance:• Complex mix of artificial and natural groupings• First recognition of cryptogams vs. seed plants, monocots vs. dicots• First to define species (variation within interbreeding populations not
worthy of species distinction)
III. Pre-Linnaean TaxonomistsC. Bauhin & Tournefort
• French• (1656‐1708)
• French‐Swiss• (1560‐1624)
• Both contributed to establishing the genus concept
11/1/2016
12
III. Pre-Linnaean TaxonomistsC. Bauhin & Tournefort
• Pinax Theatri Botanici• Shortened polynomials,
flirted with binomials for species
• Listed synonymy
III. Pre-Linnaean TaxonomistsC. Bauhin & Tournefort
• Institutiones Rei Herbariae• Very explicit about genus
concept and descriptions
IV. Linnaeus A. Carl von Linné (1707‐1778)
• Sweden• aka Carolus Linnaeus • ‘Founder of Modern Taxonomy’
11/1/2016
13
IV. Linnaeus A. Carl von Linné (1707‐1778)
• Sweden• aka Carolus Linnaeus • ‘Founder of Modern Taxonomy’
Historical Context: • Much old disjunct info,• New info (Age of Exploration,
Microscopy, Herbaria)• Potential to synthesize &
disseminate (herbaria and printing)• Need for easy, rapid way to ID,
classify, and communicate
IV. Linnaeus A. Carl von Linné (1707‐1778)
Important Works:• Systema Naturae (10th ed., 1758)
Important Works:• Species Plantarum (May 1, 1753)
11/1/2016
14
IV. Linnaeus A. Carl von Linné (1707‐1778)
Characteristics• Starting pt for modern bot nom• 5,490 names (he est. 10K spp)• Binomial
Important Works:• Species Plantarum (May 1, 1753)
Before: Plantago foliis ovato‐lanceolatis pubescentibus, spica cylindrica, scapo tereti
After: Plantago media
IV. Linnaeus
Polynomial
sp. epithet (for ease of reference)
IV. Linnaeus A. Carl von Linné (1707‐1778)
Characteristics• Starting pt for modern bot nom• 5,490 names (he est. 10K spp)• Binomial• Synonymy
Important Works:• Species Plantarum (May 1, 1753)
11/1/2016
15
IV. Linnaeus
Synonyms and source.
IV. Linnaeus A. Carl von Linné (1707‐1778)
Characteristics• Starting pt for modern bot nom• 5,490 names (he est. 10K spp)• Binomial• Synonymy• Nativity
Important Works:• Species Plantarum (May 1, 1753)
IV. Linnaeus
Nativity
11/1/2016
16
IV. Linnaeus A. Carl von Linné (1707‐1778)
Characteristics• Starting pt for modern bot nom• 5,490 names (he est. 10K spp)• Binomial• Synonymy• Nativity• Ca. 5,500 spp, ca. 1000 gen, into ca.
100 ord, 24 classes, 1 kingdom
Important Works:• Species Plantarum (May 1, 1753)
IV. Linnaeus A. Carl von Linné (1707‐1778)
Characteristics• Starting pt for modern bot nom• 5,490 names (he est. 10K spp)• Binomial• Synonymy• Nativity• Ca. 5,500 spp, ca. 1000 gen, into ca.
100 ord, 24 classes, 1 kingdom• Classes and orders were artificial
groupings, called his “Sexual System”.
Important Works:• Species Plantarum (May 1, 1753)
IV. Linnaeus
Classes based on number (and
arrangement) of stamens
Orders based on number (and
arrangement) of pistils
11/1/2016
17
IV. Linnaeus A. Carl von Linné (1707‐1778)
Anthropomorphicizing Linnaeus’s Sexual System• The flowers' leaves. . . serve as bridal beds
which the Creator has so gloriously arranged, adorned with such noble bed curtains, and perfumed with so many soft scents that the bridegroom with his bride might there celebrate their nuptials with so much the greater solemnity. . . (L., 1729)
IV. Linnaeus A. Carl von Linné (1707‐1778)
Anthropomorphicizing Linnaeus’s Sexual System• The flowers' leaves. . . serve as bridal beds
which the Creator has so gloriously arranged, adorned with such noble bed curtains, and perfumed with so many soft scents that the bridegroom with his bride might there celebrate their nuptials with so much the greater solemnity. . . (L., 1729)
• Class Pentandria, Order Monogynia was described as “5 husbands in the same marriage”
11/1/2016
18
IV. Linnaeus A. Carl von Linné (1707‐1778)
Anthropomorphicizing Linnaeus’s Sexual System• The flowers' leaves. . . serve as bridal beds
which the Creator has so gloriously arranged, adorned with such noble bed curtains, and perfumed with so many soft scents that the bridegroom with his bride might there celebrate their nuptials with so much the greater solemnity. . . (L., 1729)
• Class Pentandria, Order Monogynia was described as “5 husbands in the same marriage”
• Johann Siegesbeck (1686‐1785; St. Petersburg Bot Gard):
o Such “loathsome harlotry as several males with one female would not be permitted in the vegetable kingdom by the Creator!”
IV. Linnaeus A. Carl von Linné (1707‐1778)
Anthropomorphicizing Linnaeus’s Sexual System• The flowers' leaves. . . serve as bridal beds
which the Creator has so gloriously arranged, adorned with such noble bed curtains, and perfumed with so many soft scents that the bridegroom with his bride might there celebrate their nuptials with so much the greater solemnity. . . (L., 1729)
• Class Pentandria, Order Monogynia was described as “5 husbands in the same marriage”
• Johann Siegesbeck (1686‐1785; St. Petersburg Bot Gard):
o Such “loathsome harlotry as several males with one female would not be permitted in the vegetable kingdom by the Creator!”
o “Who would have thought that bluebells and lilies and onions could be up to such immorality?”
IV. Linnaeus A. Carl von Linné (1707‐1778)
Anthropomorphicizing Linnaeus’s Sexual System• The flowers' leaves. . . serve as bridal beds
which the Creator has so gloriously arranged, adorned with such noble bed curtains, and perfumed with so many soft scents that the bridegroom with his bride might there celebrate their nuptials with so much the greater solemnity. . . (L., 1729)
• Class Pentandria, Order Monogynia was described as “5 husbands in the same marriage”
• Johann Siegesbeck (1686‐1785; St. Petersburg Bot Gard):
o Such “loathsome harlotry as several males with one female would not be permitted in the vegetable kingdom by the Creator!”
o “Who would have thought that bluebells and lilies and onions could be up to such immorality?”
o “How could so licentious a method be taught to the young without offense?”
11/1/2016
19
In response, Linnaeus named a foul-smelling weed Siegesbeckia.
V. The French Push for Natural SystemsA. Jussieu (1748‐1836)
• Antoine de J.• Uncle Bernard de J. (Jardin des Plantes)
Important Works:• Genera Plantarum
Significance:• Natural classification• Invented the family
11/1/2016
20
V. The French Push for Natural SystemsB. Adanson (1727‐1806)
• Extensive fieldwork in Africa• Baobobs (Adansonia L.)
Important Works:• Familles des Plantes
V. The French Push for Natural SystemsB. Adanson (1727‐1806)
• Extensive fieldwork in Africa• Baobobs (Adansonia L.)
Important Works:• Familles des Plantes
Significance:• Natural classification• Compared families
quantitatively, in table format with 65 characters
V. The French Push for Natural SystemsC. Lamarck (1744‐1829)
• Early advocate for evolution• Theory of evolution by
inheritance of acquired traits
11/1/2016
21
V. The French Push for Natural SystemsC. Lamarck (1744‐1829)
• Early advocate for evolution• Theory of evolution by
inheritance of acquired traits
Important Works:• Flora Francoise
Significance:• Early French flora• Dichotomous‐like key
Darwin (1809-1882)
Origin of Species 1859
VI. Evolutionary Taxonomy
A. Darwin
VI. Evolutionary Taxonomy
B. Engler (1844-1930): Die Natürlichen Pflanzenfamilien
11/1/2016
22
C. Bessey (1845-1915)
“Bessey’s Dicta”
D. Cronquist (1919-1992)
An Integrated System of Classification of Flowering Plants (1981, 1988)
Evolutionary Taxonomists: Armen Tahktajan& Arthur Cronquist
NYBG ca. 1985
11/1/2016
23
Cronquist (1919-1992)
An Integrated System of Classification of Flowering Plants (1981, 1988)
VII. Phenetics (Phenetic Approaches to Classification)Recognize taxa based on similarity (overall similarity)
Characteristics of:
1. Many characters used (morphological, genetic, etc.)
2. Computational (computers & similarity metric)3. Objective4. Repeatable
VII. Phenetics (Phenetic Approaches to Classification)Recognize taxa based on similarity (overall similarity)
A. Adanson
B. Sneath & Sokal
Sneath & Sokal. 1973. Numerical taxonomy: The Principles and Practice of Numerical Classification.
11/1/2016
24
Example: Let’s classify the following three primate genera into two separate families.
Leontopithecus (tamarin)
Hylobates (gibbon)Homo (human, man)
Leontopithecus (golden lion tamarin)
PongoHomo
Hylobates (lar gibbon)
Homo
11/1/2016
25
Homo (human, man)
Homo erectus
Example: Let’s classify the following three primate genera into two separate families.
1. Makes observations, collect data. Hairiness Habit Tail Pedalism
Leontopithecus (tamarin) high (0) arboreal (0) yes (0) 4‐ped (0)Hylobates (gibbon) high (0) arboreal (0) no (1) 4‐ped (0)Homo (human, man) low (1) terrestrial (1) no (1) 2‐ped (1)
Example: Let’s classify the following three primate genera into two separate families.
2. Calculate similarities (states shared/Max possible) Hairiness Habit Tail Pedalism
Leontopithecus (tamarin) 0 0 0 0Hylobates (gibbon) 0 0 1 0Homo (human, man) 1 1 1 1
Record using a pairwise similarity matrix
tamarin gibbon humantamarin 1.00 0.75 0.00gibbon ‐‐‐‐‐ 1.00 0.25human ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 1.00
11/1/2016
26
Example: Let’s classify the following three primate genera into two separate families.
3. Construct phenogram (type of dendrogram)
tamarin gibbon humantamarin 1.00 0.75 0.00gibbon ‐‐‐‐‐ 1.00 0.25human ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 1.00
1. Group most similar taxa first
Example: Let’s classify the following three primate genera into two separate families.
3. Construct phenogram (type of dendrogram)
tamarin gibbon humantamarin 1.00 0.75 0.00gibbon ‐‐‐‐‐ 1.00 0.25human ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 1.00
2. Add next most similar taxon(average similarity may have to calculated)
Human – tamarin: 0.00Human – gibbon: 0.25
0.13Average similarity of human to
gibbon/tamarin group
1. Group most similar taxa first
Example: Let’s classify the following three primate genera into two separate families.
3. Construct phenogram (type of dendrogram)
tamarin gibbon humantamarin 1.00 0.75 0.00gibbon ‐‐‐‐‐ 1.00 0.25human ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 1.00
1. Group most similar taxa first
2. Add next most similar taxon(average similarity may have to calculated)
11/1/2016
27
Example: Let’s classify the following three primate genera into two separate families.
4. Classify
Hylobatidae: Hylobates (gibbon) + Leontopithecus (tamarin)
Hominidae: Homo (human)
VII. Phenetic Approaches to Classification
D. Considerations
1.) Why did phenetics florish after 1950’s?
VII. Phenetic Approaches to Classification
D. Considerations
2.) Pros?
11/1/2016
28
VII. Phenetic Approaches to Classification
D. Considerations
3.) Cons?
VIII. Cladistic Approaches to Classification
A. Willi Hennig (German; 1913‐1976)
Grundzüge einer Theorie der Phylogenetischen Systematik (Hennig, 1950).
Phylogenetic Systematics (Hennig, 1966)
VIII. Cladistic Approaches to Classification
B. Hennigian Principles
1. Classification consistent w/ phylogenyi.e., named taxa above sp‐level are clades or are monophyletic
11/1/2016
29
a. Clade/monophyletic group = grp. incl. a common ancestor and all of its descendants.
VIII. Cladistic Approaches to Classification
B. Hennigian Principles
1. Classification consistent w/ phylogenyi.e., named taxa above sp‐level are clades or are monophyletic
Cladogram depicting phylogeny of 3 taxa
Good: Genus 1: Sp B and C. Genus 2: Sp A.
a. Clade (monophyletic group) = grp. incl. a common ancestor and all of its descendants.
VIII. Cladistic Approaches to Classification
B. Hennigian Principles
1. Classification consistent w/ phylogenyi.e., named taxa above sp‐level are clades or are monophyletic
Good: Genus 1: Sp B and C. Genus 2: Sp A.
a. Clade (monophyletic group) = grp. incl. a common ancestor and all of its descendants.
• B and C comprise a clade. • B & C share a more recent
common ancestor than either does w/ A.
VIII. Cladistic Approaches to Classification
B. Hennigian Principles
1. Classification consistent w/ phylogenyi.e., named taxa above sp‐level are clades or are monophyletic
11/1/2016
30
Good: Genus 1: Sp B and C. Genus 2: Sp A.Family: Genus 1 & 2
a. Clade (monophyletic group) = grp. incl. a common ancestor and all of its descendants.
VIII. Cladistic Approaches to Classification
B. Hennigian Principles
1. Classification consistent w/ phylogenyi.e., named taxa above sp‐level are clades or are monophyletic
Bad:Genus 1: Sp B and A. Genus 2: Sp C.
a. Clade (monophyletic group) = grp. incl. a common ancestor and all of its descendants.
VIII. Cladistic Approaches to Classification
B. Hennigian Principles
1. Classification consistent w/ phylogenyi.e., named taxa above sp‐level are clades or are monophyletic
a. Clade (monophyletic group) = grp. incl. a common ancestor and all of its descendants.
b. Not all clades have to be named. Ranks applied are arbitrary.
VIII. Cladistic Approaches to Classification
B. Hennigian Principles
1. Classification consistent w/ phylogenyi.e., named taxa above sp‐level are clades or are monophyletic
11/1/2016
31
How many clades are represented here?
I
H
G
F
E
D
C
B
A
I
H
G
F
E
D
C
B
A
1 family 4 genera
I
H
G
F
E
D
C
B
A
1 order
2 families
4 genera
11/1/2016
32
a. Clade (monophyletic group) = grp. incl. a common ancestor and all of its descendants.
b. Not all clades have to be named. Ranks applied are arbitrary.c. Phylogenetic inference usu not appropriate below species.
VIII. Cladistic Approaches to Classification
B. Hennigian Principles
1. Classification consistent w/ phylogenyi.e., named taxa above sp‐level are clades or are monophyletic
B & C related by phylogeny
Pops & orgs within B and C are related
by tokogeny
VIII. Cladistic Approaches to Classification
B. Hennigian Principles
2. Clades marked by synapomorphy(s). Shared, derived, homologous character state(s)
11/1/2016
33
VIII. Cladistic Approaches to Classification
B. Hennigian Principles
2. Clades marked by synapomorphy(s). Shared, derived, homologous character state(s)
a. Homology vs. Non‐homology & Analogy
Homologous character states: Forelimbs & bones within
Non-homologous states:Wings
Homologous character states: Presence of stems, leaves, flowers, etc.
Non-homologous States:Arborescent growth.
11/1/2016
34
Vasculature Seeds Flowers
Mosses 0 0 0Ferns 1 0 0Conifers 1 1 0Angios 1 1 1
VIII. Cladistic Approaches to Classification
B. Hennigian Principles
2. Clades marked by synapomorphy(s). Shared, derived, homologous character state(s)
a. Homology vs. Analogy or Convergence
b. Types of Homology: Apomorphy
SynapomorphyAutapomorphy
PlesiomorphySymplesiomorphy
ApomorphyPlesiomorphy
Hairiness Habit Tail Pedalism
tamarin high (0) arboreal (0) yes (0) 4‐ped (0)gibbon high (0) arboreal (0) no (1) 4‐ped (0)human low (1) terrestrial (1) no (1) 2‐ped (1)
11/1/2016
35
Hairiness Habit Tail Pedalism
tamarin high (0) arboreal (0) yes (0) 4‐ped (0)gibbon high (0) arboreal (0) no (1) 4‐ped (0)human low (1) terrestrial (1) no (1) 2‐ped (1)
Phenogram was based on overall similarity(plesiomorphies weighted equally to apomorphies)
Hairiness Habit Tail Pedalism
tamarin high (0) arboreal (0) yes (0) 4‐ped (0)gibbon high (0) arboreal (0) no (1) 4‐ped (0)human low (1) terrestrial (1) no (1) 2‐ped (1)
Plesiomorphies are uninformative.
No evidence for this clade
Hairiness Habit Tail Pedalism
tamarin high (0) arboreal (0) yes (0) 4‐ped (0)gibbon high (0) arboreal (0) no (1) 4‐ped (0)human low (1) terrestrial (1) no (1) 2‐ped (1)
Plesiomorphies are uninformative.
High hairiness plesiomorphic in mammals
No evidence for this clade
11/1/2016
36
Hairiness Habit Tail Pedalism
tamarin high (0) arboreal (0) yes (0) 4‐ped (0)gibbon high (0) arboreal (0) no (1) 4‐ped (0)human low (1) terrestrial (1) no (1) 2‐ped (1)
Plesiomorphies are uninformative.
High hairiness plesiomorphic in mammalsArboreal is plesiom. in primates
No evidence for this clade
Hairiness Habit Tail Pedalism
tamarin high (0) arboreal (0) yes (0) 4‐ped (0)gibbon high (0) arboreal (0) no (1) 4‐ped (0)human low (1) terrestrial (1) no (1) 2‐ped (1)
Plesiomorphies are uninformative.
High hairiness plesiomorphic in mammalsArboreal is plesiom. in primates4-ped is plesiom. in vertebrates. No evidence
for this clade
Hairiness Habit Tail Pedalism
tamarin high (0) arboreal (0) yes (0) 4‐ped (0)gibbon high (0) arboreal (0) no (1) 4‐ped (0)human low (1) terrestrial (1) no (1) 2‐ped (1)
Wrong.
Autapomorphies are uninformative. 00 10
1
1
No evidence for this clade
11/1/2016
37
Hairiness Habit Tail Pedalism
tamarin high (0) arboreal (0) yes (0) 4‐ped (0)gibbon high (0) arboreal (0) no (1) 4‐ped (0)human low (1) terrestrial (1) no (1) 2‐ped (1)
0 1
Synapomorphies are informative
Hairiness Habit Tail Pedalism
tamarin high (0) arboreal (0) yes (0) 4‐ped (0)gibbon high (0) arboreal (0) no (1) 4‐ped (0)human low (1) terrestrial (1) no (1) 2‐ped (1)
0 1
Autapomorphies do not change this. 00 10
1
1
Same data, different groupings (Cladistics vs. Phenetics):
1. Both based on lots of data, repeatable, objective, computational.
2. Both use dendrograms to represent how they presume taxa are related.
3. Phenetics based on overall similarity, cladistics based on special similarity (synapomorphies).
Phenogram
Cladogram
Phenetic classificationFamily 1: gibbons & tamarinsFamily 2: humans alone
Cladistic classificationFamily1: gibbons & humansFamily 2: tamarins alone
11/1/2016
38
Hamamelidae
Cronquist vs. Hennig:
1. Both evolutionary.
2. Both based on lots of data, but Cronquist’s methodology was subjective (authoritarian) and not as objective or repeatable as Hennig’s.
3. Both used tree-like diagrams to represent how they presume taxa are related. (Though Cronquist’s Besseygrams are less precise than a cladogram)
4. Cronquist willing to recognize nonmonophyletic groups. Hennig not willing.
Angiosperms are monophyletic: therefore, we could recognize as a Sp (e.g., Magnoliophyta or Magnoliopsida)
asteridscaryophyllids
rosids
monocotsmagnoliids
nymphaeids(water-lilies & friends)
Ranunculids& other primitive eudicots
asteridscaryophyllids
rosids
monocotsmagnoliids
nymphaeids(water-lilies & friends)
Ranunculids& other primitive eudicots
But what about classic subdivision into “monocots” &“dicots?” e.g., Cronquist (1981) Which of Cronquist’s classes is not monophyletic?
Magnoliophyta (angiosperms)Magnoliopsida (dicots)Liliopsida (monocots)
11/1/2016
39
But what about classic subdivision into “monocots” &“dicots?” e.g., Cronquist (1981) Which of Cronquist’s classes is not monophyletic?
Magnoliophyta (angiosperms)Magnoliopsida (dicots)Liliopsida (monocots)
asteridscaryophyllids
rosids
monocotsmagnoliids
nymphaeids(water-lilies & friends)
Ranunculids& other primitive eudicots
More: Cronquist’s Magnoliidae included water-lilies, Magnoliids, and some primitive eudicots. Emphasis on floral Symplesiomorphies.
asteridscaryophyllids
rosids
monocotsmagnoliids
nymphaeids(water-lilies & friends)
Ranunculids& other primitive eudicots
Dr. Hardy’s classifications of angiosperms:
Magnoliopsida (angiosperms)Various monophyletic subclasses.
Asteridae
Rosidae
Caryophyllidae
Proteidae
Ranunculidae
Liliidae
Magnoliidae
Nymphaeidae