On the Typology of Relations
The possibility of undertaking matrix/optimization-free cladistic analysis is one of the most interesting ideas to emerge in the last few decades from within the field of systematics, particularly in the development of cladistics. The purpose of this paper is to design further opportunities and prospects made possible by eliminating the matrix as the primary source of data representation. The main focus of this paper is to outline a supertree approach that, if combined with the methodology of three-taxon statement analysis (3TA), may be seen as a powerful heuristic alternative to the application of conventional matrix/optimization-based methods used for the analysis of systematic data, and which currently forms the mainstream of contemporary phylogenetics. Using the average consensus technique as an example, we demonstrate explicitly that methods of construction of supertrees may be applied to the array of three-taxon statements (3TS), especially if the latter are represented initially as minimal trees, not as binary matrices, as was originally proposed. The 3TA-average consensus procedure recognizes solely ‘reversal’-based clades and is also free from the potential issues of 3TA, such as the data distortion due to inability to handle putative reversals. Thus the main benefit of this new approach over the traditional one is its accuracy and advantages when implementing the Hennigian views on the cladistic analysis that states that all characters must be a priori polarized before the best fitting tree is found. We also found that the average consensus technique (as well as other median supertree calculation techniques) is purely typological and we stressed that this simple point had never been mentioned before. We proposed that the average consensus of 3TSs (as well as any median consensus of 3TSs) may be viewed as a median type and the extended procedure of the traditional 3TA may be treated as a typology of the relations. The connection between median type and phylogeny may be established only indirectly. The heuristic scientific typology may be derived within a completely metaphysics-free context. Goethe’s idea of “Urphenomenon” and Max Weber’s “Ideal Types” are mentioned as examples of heuristic metaphysical-free typological frameworks.
KeywordsAverage consensus method Median supertrees Matrix-free Cladistics Three-taxon statement Three-taxon statement analysis
The authors wish to thank Prof. Michel Laurin (CNRS/MNHN/UPMC, Sorbonne Universités, Paris, France), Dr. Valentin Rineau (CNRS/MNHN/UPMC, Sorbonne Universités, Paris, France) and an anonymous reviewer for their helpful comments and suggestions.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Aguirre-Fernández, G., Barnes, L. G., Aranda-Manteca, F. J., & Fernández-Rivera, J. R. (2009). Protoglobicephala mexicana, a new genus and species of Pliocene fossil dolphin (Cetacea; Odontoceti; Delphinidae) from the Gulf of California. Boletín de la Sociedad Geológica Mexicana, 61(2), 245–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Ax, P. (1987). The phylogenetic system. The systematization of organisms on the basis of their phylogenesis. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Bininda-Emonds, O. R. (2014). An introduction to supertree construction (and partitioned phylogenetic analyses) with a view toward the distinction between gene trees and species trees. In L. Z. Garamszegi (Ed.), Modern phylogenetic comparative methods and their application in evolutionary biology (pp. 49–76). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Bruun, H. H. (2001). Weber on Rickert: From value relation to ideal type. Max Weber Studies, 1(2), 138–160.Google Scholar
- Burger, T. (1978). Max Weber’s theory of concept formation: History, laws and ideal types. Duran: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
- Cantino, P. D., & de Queiroz, K. (2010). PhyloCode: A phylogenetic code of biological nomenclature. Version 4c.Google Scholar
- Cao, N., Zaraguëta-Bagils, R., & Vignes-Lebbe, R. (2007). Hierarchical representation of hypotheses of homology. Geodiversitas, 29(1), 5–15.Google Scholar
- Carine, M. A., & Scotland, R. W. (1999). Taxic and transformational homology: Different ways of seeing. Cladistics, 15, 121–129.Google Scholar
- Cotton, J. A., & Page, R. D. M. (2004). Tangled trees from molecular markers: Reconciling conflict between phylogenies to build molecular supertrees. In O. R. P. Bininda-Emonds (Ed.), Phylogenetic supertrees: Combining information to reveal the tree of life (pp. 107–125). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Creevey, C. (2004). Clann: Construction of supertrees and exploration of phylogenomic information from partially overlapping datasets (version 3.0.0), user manual. 3.0 ed. Manchester, Great Britan: The lab of James McInerney. http://chriscreevey.github.io/clann/.
- Ebach, M. C. (2005). Anschauung and the Archetype: The role of Goethe’s delicate empiricism in comparative biology. Janus Head, 8(1), 254–270.Google Scholar
- Ebach, M. C. (2017). “Mehr Licht!” Anschauung and its fading role in Morphology. In: J. F. G. Toni, R. Richter, & P. Schilperoord (Eds.), Evolving morphology (pp. 22–37). Dornach.Google Scholar
- Eldredge, N., & Cracraft, J. (1980). Phylogenetic patterns and the evolutionary process. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
- Farris, J. S. (1997). Cycles. Cladistics, 13(1–2), 131–144.Google Scholar
- Felsenstein, J. (1989). PHYLIP – phylogeny inference package (Version 3.2). Cladistics, 5(2), 164–166.Google Scholar
- Felsenstein, J. (2004). Inferring phylogenies (2nd ed.). Sunderland: Sinauer Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
- Heincke, F. (1898). Naturgeschichte des Herings. Teil I. Die Lokalformen und die Wanderungen des Heringes in den europaischen Meeren. In Abhandlungen des Deutschen Seefischerei-Vereins (Bd. II). Berlin: Verlag von Otto Sale. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=chi.23758345;view=1up;seq=7.
- Hennig, W. (1966). Phylogenetic systematics (D. Davis, & R. Zangerl, Trans.). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
- Kitching, I. J., Forey, P. L., Humphries, C. J., & Williams, D. M. (1998). Cladistics: The theory and practice of parsimony analysis (Vol. 11, 2nd ed.). Oxford: Systematics Association Publication.Google Scholar
- Kluge, A. G., & Farris, J. S. (1999). Taxic homology equals overall similarity. Cladistics, 15(2), 205–212.Google Scholar
- Maddison, W. P., & Maddison, D. R. (2011). Mesquite: A modular system for evolutionary analysis. Version 3.01. Retrieved from http://mesquiteproject.org/.
- Mavrodiev, E. V., & Yurtseva, O. V. (2017). “A character does not make a genus, but the genus makes the character”: Three-taxon statement analysis and intuitive taxonomy. European Journal of Taxonomy, 377, 1–7.Google Scholar
- Mikoleit, G. (2004). Phylogenetische Systematik der Wirbeltiere. Pfeil, Dr. Friedrich.Google Scholar
- Nelson, G. 1996. Nullius in verba. New York, Self-published.Google Scholar
- Nelson, G., & Ladiges, P. Y. (1994). Three-item consensus: Empirical test of fractional weighting. In R. W. Scotland, D. J. Siebert, & D. M. Williams (Eds.), Models in phylogeny reconstruction (Systematics Association, special volume series) (Vol. 52, pp. 193–209). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Nelson, G., & Platnick, N. (1981). Systematics and biogeography: Cladistics and vicariance. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
- Patterson, C. (1980). Cladistics. Biologist, 27, 234–240.Google Scholar
- Rambaut, A. (2012). FigTree Version. 1.4.3. Molecular evolution, phylogenetics and epidemiology. Edinburgh, UK. University of Edinburgh, Institute of Evolutionary Biology. Retrieved from http://tree.bio.ed.ac.uk/software/figtree/.
- Remane, A. (1952). Grundlagen des Natürlichen Systems, der Vergleichenden Anatomie und der Phylogenetik. Theoretische Morphologie und Systematik. Leipzig: Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft Geert & Portig.Google Scholar
- Rineau, V., Grand, A., Zaraguëta-Bagils, R., & Laurin, M. (2015). Experimental systematics: Sensitivity of cladistic methods to polarization and character ordering schemes. Contributions to Zoology, 84(2), 129–148.Google Scholar
- Rineau, V., Zaraguëta-Bagils, R., & Laurin, M. (2018). Impact of errors on cladistic inference: Simulation-based comparison between parsimony and three-taxon analysis. Contributions to Zoology, 87(1), 25–40.Google Scholar
- Schmitt, M. (2016a). Hennig, Ax, and present-day mainstream cladistics on polarizing characters. Peckiana, 11, 35–42.Google Scholar
- Schmitt, M. (2016b). How much of Hennig is in present day cladistics? In D. M. Williams, M. Schmitt, & Q. Wheeler (Eds.), The future of phylogenetic systematics: The legacy of Willi Hennig (Systematics Association, special volume series) (Vol. 86, pp. 115–127). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Smirnov, E. (1925). The theory of type and natural system. Zeitschrift fuer Induktive Abstammungs und Vererbungslehre (Berlin), 37, 28–66.Google Scholar
- Sokal, R. R., & Sneath, P. H. A. (1963). Principles of numerical taxonomy. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
- Stevens, P. F. (1983). Report of third annual Willi Hennig Society meeting. Systematic Zoology, 32(3), 285–291.Google Scholar
- Swofford, D. L. (2002). PAUP*. Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony (*and other methods). Version 4.0. Sunderland: Sinauer Associates.Google Scholar
- Thorley, J. L., & Wilkinson, M. (2003). A view of supertree methods. In Janowitz, M. E. et al. (Eds.), Bioconsensus: DIMACS Working Group Meetings on Bioconsensus: October 25–26, 2000 and October 2–5, 2001, DIMACS Center, vol. 61 (pp. 185–194). American Mathematical Society.Google Scholar
- Waegele, J. W. (2005). Foundations of phylogenetic systematics. München: Pfeil Verlag.Google Scholar
- Williams, D. M., & Ebach, M. C. (2006). The data matrix. Geodiversitas, 28(3), 409–420.Google Scholar
- Williams, D. M., & Siebert, D. J. (2000). Characters, homology and three-item analysis. In R. W. Scotland & R. T. Pennington (Eds.), Homology and systematics: Coding characters for phylogenetic analysis (Systematics Association, special volume series) (Vol. 58, pp. 183–208). Chapman and Hall: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar