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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
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
Assis LCS (2017) Patterns of character evolution in phylogenies. J Syst Evol 55:225–230. https://doi.org/10.1111/jse.12241
Brower AVZ (2015) Transformational and taxic homology revisited. Cladistics 31:197–201. https://doi.org/10.1111/cla.12076
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 663–684
de Pinna MCC (1991) Concepts and tests of homology in the cladistic paradigm. Cladistics 7:367–394
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
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 181–200
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 22–53
Hennig W (1966) Phylogenetic systematics. University of Illinois Press, Urbana
Hufford L (1996) Developmental morphology of female flowers of Gyrostemon and Tersonia and floral evolution among Gyrostemonaceae. Am J Bot 83:1471–1487
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
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 473–496
Patterson C (1982) Morphological characters and homology. In: Joysey KA, Friday AE (eds) Problems of phylogenetic reconstruction. Academic Press, London, pp 21–74
Patterson C (1988) Homology in classical and molecular biology. Molec Biol Evol 5:603–625
Rieppel OC (1988) Fundamentals of comparative biology. Birkhaänuser, Basel
Rieppel O, Kearney M (2002) Similarity. Biol J Lin Soc 75:59–82
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 157–168
Scotland RW (2011) What is parallelism? Evol Developm 3:214–227. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-142X.2011.00471.x
Scotland R, Pennington RT (eds) (2000) Homology and systematics: coding characters for phylogenetic analysis. Taylor and Francis, London
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
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 543–578
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 623–662
Wagner G (2014) Homology, genes, and evolutionary innovation. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Wiens JJ (1999) Polymorphism in systematics and comparative biology. Annual Rev Ecol Syst 30:327–362
Williams DM, Ebach MC (2008) Foundations of systematics and biogeography. Springer, New York
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
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.
Additional information
Handling Editor: Louis P. Ronse De Craene.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Assis, L.C.S. The criterion of conjunction in plant systematics and evolution. Plant Syst Evol 305, 925–931 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00606-019-01612-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00606-019-01612-3