Skip to main content

Parsimony and Paraphyly

  • Chapter
Numerical Taxonomy

Part of the book series: NATO ASI Series ((ASIG,volume 1))

Abstract

Phylogenetic analysis may be described as the attempt to discover nested monophyletic groups. ‘Monophyly’ here is used in the sense of Hennig (1966) and is equivalent to Ashlock’s (1971) ‘holophyletic’ group. The characterization of such a group is clear; it is distinguished by a set of non-convergent derived character states (synapomorphies). A group that is not monophyletic may be further characterized by the use of two other terms, ‘paraphyly’ and ‘polyphyly’. However, these terms have been applied to a range of different concepts, with the result that a confusing array of different definitions exists for each (see Holmes 1980 for a recent review). Certainly clarification of these definitions is important as the terms are used by both ‘cladists’ and evolutionary taxonomists and are useful in the evaluation of these different approaches to classification.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ashlock, P.D. 1971.Monophyly and associated terms. Syst Zool. 20: 63–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashlock, P.D. 1979. An evolutionary systematist’s view of classi fication. Syst.Zool. 28: 441–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farris, J.S. 1974. Formal definitions of paraphyly and polyphyly. Syst.Zool. 23: 548–554.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitch, W.M. 1971. Toward defining the course of evolution: minimum for a specific tree topology. Syst. Zool. 20: 406–416.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hennig, W. 1966. Phytogenetic Systematics. Univ. Illinois Press. Urbana. 263 p.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmes, E. B. 1980. Reconsideration of some systematic concepts and terms. Evolutionary Theory 5 (1): 35–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayr, E. 1981. Biological classification: Toward a synthesis of opposing methodologies. Science 214: 510–516.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Platnick, N.I. 1977. Paraphyletic and polyphyletic groups. Syst. Zool. 26: 195–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1983 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Faith, D.P. (1983). Parsimony and Paraphyly. In: Felsenstein, J. (eds) Numerical Taxonomy. NATO ASI Series, vol 1. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-69024-2_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-69024-2_5

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-69026-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-69024-2

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics