Advertisement

Phylogenetic Analysis and the Detection of Ontogenetic Patterns

  • William L. Fink
Part of the Topics in Geobiology book series (TGBI, volume 7)

Abstract

Some years ago an article in the journal Nature recounted a discussion which had occurred at a meeting of paleontologists at the British Museum (Halstead, 1978; see also Gardiner et al., 1979). Part of the debate concerned the differing classifications systematists of two schools might propose based on the same evidence about relationships. The schools were the phylogenetic (or cladistic) school and the “evolutionary” school. One discussant rose to claim that given a lungfish, a salmon, and a cow to classify, a phylogeneticist would perform the ridiculous action of grouping the lungfish and the cow together, exclusive of the salmon. A phylogeneticist replied “Yes, I cannot see what is wrong in that” (Halstead, 1978). Such exchanges exemplify some of the arguments that, until recently, were the stock in trade of gatherings concerning comparative biology and systematics. The debate has touched many areas of the biological sciences, from biogeography to developmental biology. What follows is a summary of the assumptions and methods of phylogenetic systematics, and how its practice can elucidate the relationship between ontogeny and phylogeny. I also address the problem of integrating studies of ontogenetic processes such as heterochrony into a modern comparative framework.

Keywords

Fossil Record Body Depth Evolutionary Novelty Tooth Morphology Positional Problem 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alberch, P., Gould, S. J., Oster, G. F., and Wake, D. B., 1979, Size and shape in ontogeny and phylogeny, Paleobiology 5: 296–317.Google Scholar
  2. Bookstein, F. L., Chernoff, B., Elder, R. L, Humphries, J. M., Smith, G. R., and Strauss, R. E., 1985, Morphometrics in Evolutionary Biology, Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Special Publication 15.Google Scholar
  3. Clark, C., and Curran, D. J., 1986, Outgroup analysis, homoplasy and global parsimony: A response to Maddison, Donoghue, and Maddison, Syst. Zool. 35: 422–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cracraft, J., 1981, Pattern and Process in paleobiology: The role of cladistic analysis in systematic paleontology, Paleobiology 7: 456–468.Google Scholar
  5. Creighton, G. K., and Strauss, R. E., 1985, Comparative patterns of growth and development in criticine rodents and the evolution of ontogeny, Evolution 40: 94–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Darwin, C., 1859, On the Origin of Species, Murray, London.Google Scholar
  7. De Queiroz, K., 1985, The ontogenetic method for determining character polarity and its relevance to phylogenetic systematics, Syst. Zool. 34: 280–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dingus, L., and Sadler, P. M., 1982, The effects of stratigraphic completeness on estimates of evolutionary rates, Syst. Zool. 31: 400–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Donoghue, M. J., and Cantino, P. D., 1984, The logic and limitations of the outgroup substitution approach to cladistic analysis, Syst. Bot. 9: 192–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Felsenstein, J., 1978, The number of evolutionary trees, Syst. Zool. 27: 27–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fink, W. L., 1982, The conceptual relationship between ontogeny and phylogeny, Paleobiology 8: 254–264.Google Scholar
  12. Fink, W. L., 1986, Phylogenetics and microcomputers, Science 234: 1135–1139.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gardiner, B. G., Janvier, P., Patterson, C., Forey, P. L., Greenwood, P. H., Miles, R. S., and Jefferies, R. P. S., 1979, The salmon, the lungfish and the cow: A reply, Nature 277: 175–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gauthier, J., 1984, A cladistic analysis of the higher systematic categories of the Diapsida, Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley [available from University Microfilms, No. 85-12825, Ann Arbor, Michigan].Google Scholar
  15. Gauthier, J., 1986, Saurischian monophyly and the origin of birds, in: The Origin of Birds and the Evolution of flight, (K. Padian, ed.), Mem. Calif. Acad. Sci. 8: 1–55.Google Scholar
  16. Gauthier, J., Kluge, A. G., and Rowe, T., 1988, Amniote phylogeny and the importance of fossils, Cladistics 4: 105–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ghiselin, M. T., 1974, A radical solution to the species problem, Syst. Zool. 23: 536–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ghiselin, M. T., 1981, Categories, life, and thinking, Behav. Brain Sci. 4: 269–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gingerich, P. D., 1979, Stratophenetic approach to phylogeny reconstruction in vertebrate phylogeny, in: Phylogenetic Analysis and Paleontology (J. Cracraft and N. Eldredge, eds.), pp. 41–77, Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  20. Gould, S. J., 1977, Ontogeny and Phylogeny, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  21. Halstead, L. B., 1978, The cladistic revolution—Can it make the grade? Nature 289:759–760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hennig, W., 1966, Phylogenetic Systematics, University of Illinois Press, Urbana.Google Scholar
  23. Homer, J. R., 1984, The nesting behavior of dinosaurs, Sci. Am. 250: 130–137.Google Scholar
  24. Hull, D. L., 1978, A matter of individuality, Philos. Sci. 45: 335–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kluge, A. G., and Strauss, R. E., 1985, Ontogeny and systematics, Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 16: 247–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Maddison, W. P., Donoghue, M. J., and Maddison, D. R., 1984, Outgroup analysis and parsimony, Syst. Zool. 33: 83–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nelson, G. J., 1978, Ontogeny, phylogeny, paleontology, and the biogenetic law, Syst. Zool. 27: 324–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Paul, C. R. C., 1982, The adequacy of the fossil record, in: The Problems of Phylogenetic Reconstruction (K. A. Joysey and A. E. Friday, eds.), pp. 75–117, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  29. Stevens, P. F., 1980, Evolutionary polarity of character states, Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 11: 333–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Strauss, R. E., and Bookstein, F. L., 1982, The truss: Body form reconstruction in morphometrics, Syst. Zool. 31: 113–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Strauss, R. E., and Fuiman, L. A., 1985, Quantitative comparisons of body form and allometry in larval and adult Pacific sculpins (Teleostei: Cottidae), Can. J. Zool. 63: 1582–1589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Thompson, D’A. W., 1961, On Growth and Form, abridged edition Q. T. Bonner, ed.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  33. Wiley, E. O., 1979, An annotated Linnean hierarchy, with comments on natural taxa and competing systems, Syst. Zool. 28: 308–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • William L. Fink
    • 1
  1. 1.Museum of Zoology and Department of BiologyUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations