Advertisement

The criterion of conjunction in plant systematics and evolution

  • Leandro C. S. AssisEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

I review the theory and practice behind as reported by Patterson (in: Joysey, Friday (eds) Problems of phylogenetic reconstruction, Academic Press, London, 1982) the criterion of conjunction in plant systematics and evolution, with a focus on: (1) de Pinna (Cladistics 7:367–394, 1991) analysis of homology in the cladistic framework; (2) Hawkins’ (in: Scotland, Pennington (eds) Homology and systematics: coding characters for phylogenetic analysis, Taylor and Francis, London, 2000) survey of character coding; (3) Sereno (Cladistics 23:565–587, 2007) view of neomorphic and transformational characters; (4) character coding and polymorphic taxa; and (5) the relationship between character coding and plant variation using examples cited by Hawkins (in: Scotland, Pennington (eds) Homology and systematics: coding characters for phylogenetic analysis, Taylor and Francis, London, 2000). I coin the term “Replicable homology,” in contrast to serial homology, to make reference to the presence of multiple copies of the same structure or part in the same organism. I conclude that by Patterson’s (in: Joysey, Friday (eds) Problems of phylogenetic reconstruction, Academic Press, London, 1982) criterion is an important tool in order to identify neomorphic characters and that it cannot be applied to transformational characters. Conventional coding is the appropriate way to code characters, whereas both conjunction and unifying coding should be abolished from character analysis, as they are in disagreement with the view that a single character state must contain a mutually exclusive condition in relation to other character states.

Keywords

Character Character coding Character states Homology Neomorphic characters Transformational characters 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I thank Quentin Cronk, Olivier Rieppel, Mark Simmons, the Associate Editor Louis Ronse De Craene, and two anonymous reviewers for constructive comments on an early draft of this article.

Compliance with ethical standard statement

Conflict of interest

I declare that there is no conflict of interest relative to the article.

Human and animal rights

This work did not involve animal and human participants as subjects.

Ethical statement

As the corresponding author, I am prepared to present further documents of compliance with ethical standards.

References

  1. Assis LCS (2009) Coherence, correspondence, and the renaissance of morphology in phylogenetic systematics. Cladistics 25:528–544.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-0031.2009.00261.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Assis LCS (2017) Patterns of character evolution in phylogenies. J Syst Evol 55:225–230.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jse.12241 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brower AVZ (2015) Transformational and taxic homology revisited. Cladistics 31:197–201.  https://doi.org/10.1111/cla.12076 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cox PA, Huynh KL, Stone BC (1995) Evolution and systematics of Pandanaceae. In: Rudall PJ, Cribb PJ, Cutler DF, Humphries CJ (eds) Monocotyledons systematics and evolution, vol. 1. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, pp 663–684Google Scholar
  5. de Pinna MCC (1991) Concepts and tests of homology in the cladistic paradigm. Cladistics 7:367–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Franz NM (2005) Outline of an explanatory account of cladistic practice. Biol Philos 20:489–515.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-004-0757-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Goldblatt P (1995) The status of R. Dahlgren’s orders Liliales and Melanthiales. In: Rudall PJ, Cribb PJ, Cutler DF, Humphries CJ (eds) Monocotyledons systematics and evolution, vol 1. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, pp 181–200Google Scholar
  8. Hawkins JA (2000) A survey of primary homology assessment: different botanists perceive and define characters in different ways? In: Scotland R, Pennington RT (eds) Homology and systematics: coding characters for phylogenetic analysis. Taylor and Francis, London, pp 22–53Google Scholar
  9. Hennig W (1966) Phylogenetic systematics. University of Illinois Press, UrbanaGoogle Scholar
  10. Hufford L (1996) Developmental morphology of female flowers of Gyrostemon and Tersonia and floral evolution among Gyrostemonaceae. Am J Bot 83:1471–1487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kearney M, Rieppel O (2006) Rejecting the ‘‘given’’ in systematics. Cladistics 22:369–377.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-0031.2006.00110.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Linder HP, Kellogg EA (1995) Phylogenetic patterns in the commelinid clade. In: Rudall PJ, Cribb PJ, Cutler DF, Humphries CJ (eds) Monocotyledons systematics and evolution, vol. 1. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, pp 473–496Google Scholar
  13. Patterson C (1982) Morphological characters and homology. In: Joysey KA, Friday AE (eds) Problems of phylogenetic reconstruction. Academic Press, London, pp 21–74Google Scholar
  14. Patterson C (1988) Homology in classical and molecular biology. Molec Biol Evol 5:603–625Google Scholar
  15. Rieppel OC (1988) Fundamentals of comparative biology. Birkhaänuser, BaselGoogle Scholar
  16. Rieppel O, Kearney M (2002) Similarity. Biol J Lin Soc 75:59–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rudall PJ, Cutler DF (1995) Asparagales: a reappraisal. In: Rudall PJ, Cribb PJ, Cutler DF, Humphries CJ (eds) Monocotyledons systematics and evolution, vol. 1. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, pp 157–168Google Scholar
  18. Scotland RW (2011) What is parallelism? Evol Developm 3:214–227.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-142X.2011.00471.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Scotland R, Pennington RT (eds) (2000) Homology and systematics: coding characters for phylogenetic analysis. Taylor and Francis, LondonGoogle Scholar
  20. Sereno PC (2007) Logical basis for morphological characters in phylogenetics. Cladistics 23:565–587.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-0031.2007.00161.x Google Scholar
  21. Stevenson DW, Loconte H (1995) Cladistic analysis of monocot families. In: Rudall PJ, Cribb PJ, Cutler DF, Humphries CJ (eds) Monocotyledons systematics and evolution, vol. 1. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, pp 543–578Google Scholar
  22. Uhl NW, Dransfield J, Davis JI, Luckow MA, Hansen KS, Doyle JJ (1995) Phylogenetic relationships among palms: cladistic analyses of morphological and chloroplast DNA restriction site variation. In: Rudall PJ, Cribb PJ, Cutler DF, Humphries CJ (eds) Monocotyledons systematics and evolution, vol. 1. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, pp 623–662Google Scholar
  23. Wagner G (2014) Homology, genes, and evolutionary innovation. Princeton University Press, PrincetonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wiens JJ (1999) Polymorphism in systematics and comparative biology. Annual Rev Ecol Syst 30:327–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Williams DM, Ebach MC (2008) Foundations of systematics and biogeography. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Austria, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departamento de Botânica, Instituto de Ciências BiológicasUniversidade Federal de Minas GeraisBelo HorizonteBrazil

Personalised recommendations