Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Defining and redefining monophyly: Haeckel, Hennig, Ashlock, Nelson and the proliferation of definitions

Defining and redefining monophyly: Haeckel, Hennig, Ashlock, Nelson and the proliferation of... The various existing definitions of monophyly have resulted in confusion within the systematics community. The divergence in terminology started with the work of Willi Hennig who attempted to introduce a precise definition of phylogenetic relationship in 1950, a term that he had synonymised with monophyly by 1953, thereby creating a new definition. In 1965, Hennig introduced paraphyly to distinguish his version of monophyly from groups based on symplesiomorphies or stem groups. In attempting to resolve the confusion, Ashlock synonymised Hennigs monophyly as holophyly, resulting in another new term. Ashlock, Mayr and others defended Haeckels original use of monophyly, by including holophyly and paraphyly. The result was an unresolved 21-year debate on monophyly and its various uses. A review of the history of monophyly and the origins of its various definitions has resulted in two new terms to distinguish the different versions of monophyly currently in use: diamonophyly, which group definitions based a notion of ancestor-descendant relationships, and synmonophyly, which groups definition based on kinship relationships. The terms reciprocal monophyly and oligophyly are discussed as being diamonophyletic. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Australian Systematic Botany CSIRO Publishing

Defining and redefining monophyly: Haeckel, Hennig, Ashlock, Nelson and the proliferation of definitions

Loading next page...
 
/lp/csiro-publishing/defining-and-redefining-monophyly-haeckel-hennig-ashlock-nelson-and-KcDUzOhOME

References (64)

Publisher
CSIRO Publishing
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s). Published by CSIRO Publishing
ISSN
1030-1887
eISSN
1446-4701
DOI
10.1071/SB13031
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

The various existing definitions of monophyly have resulted in confusion within the systematics community. The divergence in terminology started with the work of Willi Hennig who attempted to introduce a precise definition of phylogenetic relationship in 1950, a term that he had synonymised with monophyly by 1953, thereby creating a new definition. In 1965, Hennig introduced paraphyly to distinguish his version of monophyly from groups based on symplesiomorphies or stem groups. In attempting to resolve the confusion, Ashlock synonymised Hennigs monophyly as holophyly, resulting in another new term. Ashlock, Mayr and others defended Haeckels original use of monophyly, by including holophyly and paraphyly. The result was an unresolved 21-year debate on monophyly and its various uses. A review of the history of monophyly and the origins of its various definitions has resulted in two new terms to distinguish the different versions of monophyly currently in use: diamonophyly, which group definitions based a notion of ancestor-descendant relationships, and synmonophyly, which groups definition based on kinship relationships. The terms reciprocal monophyly and oligophyly are discussed as being diamonophyletic.

Journal

Australian Systematic BotanyCSIRO Publishing

Published: Dec 20, 2013

There are no references for this article.