Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T19:36:44.439Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

8 - Modern Artificial Methods and Raw Data

from Part IV - How to Study Classification

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 July 2020

David M. Williams
Affiliation:
Natural History Museum, London
Malte C. Ebach
Affiliation:
University of New South Wales, Sydney
Get access

Summary

In Chapter 2 we noted some differences between natural and artificial classifications. To recap: artificial classifications are created or imposed and often constructed so that those who do not know a particular organism are able to identify it. Natural classification is about discovery; discovering something about the natural world (of which more later). The usual kinds of artificial classifications are keys and field guides (see Chapter 2), but here we extend the term to include classifications found by using any specific method, or any specific algorithm, or any specific kind of data, even a combination of the above. This may seem an extreme position to take, one that would eliminate all methods of analysis as having any merit. This is not what we are stating and we will expand on this below, but first we begin by considering ‘sets’ of numerical methods and discussing what we understand to be their underlying philosophy. We do not intend to discuss in detail the technical workings of all those methods. As we have already noted, we are not writing a cookbook.

Type
Chapter
Information
Cladistics
A Guide to Biological Classification
, pp. 215 - 236
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

de Pinna, MCC. 1991. Concepts and tests of homology in the cladistic paradigm. Cladistics 7: 367394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grand, A. 2013. Représentation sémantique des phénotypes: métamodèle et ontologies pour les caractères taxonomiques et phylogénétiques. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, MNHN Paris.Google Scholar
Nelson, G. 2011. Resemblance as evidence of ancestry. Zootaxa 2946: 137141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nixon, KC. & Carpenter, JM. 2011. On homology. Cladistics 28: 160169.Google Scholar
Owen, R. 1849. On the Nature of Limbs. John van Voorst, London.Google Scholar
Patterson, C. 1982. Morphological characters and homology. In: Joysey, KA. & Friday, AE. (eds), Problems of Phylogenetic Reconstruction. Academic Press, London, pp. 2174.Google Scholar
Richter, S. 2017. Homology and synapomorphy – symplesiomorphy – neither synonymous nor equivalent but different perspectives on the same phenomenon. Cladistics 33: 540544.Google Scholar
Williams, DM. 2004. Homologues and homology, phenetics and cladistics: 150 years of progress. In: Williams, DM. & Forey, PL. (eds) Milestones in Systematics. CRC Press, Florida, pp. 191224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, DM. & Ebach, MC. 2012. Confusing homologs as homologies: a reply to “On homology”. Cladistics 28: 223224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

References

Abadi, S., Azouri, D., Pupko, T. & Mayrose, I. 2019. Model selection may not be a mandatory step for phylogeny reconstruction. Nature Communications 10(934). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467–019-08822-wGoogle Scholar
Brower, AVZ. & Schawaroch, V. 1996. Three steps of homology assessment. Cladistics 12: 265272.Google Scholar
Cain, AJ. & Harrison, GA. 1960. Phyletic weighting. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 135: 1–31.Google Scholar
de Pinna, MCC. 1991. Concepts and tests of homology in the cladistic paradigm. Cladistics 7: 367–394.Google Scholar
Goloboff, PA., Torres, A. & Arias, JS. 2018. Parsimony and model-based phylogenetic methods for morphological data: a comment on O’Reilly et al. Palaeontology 61: 625–663. https://doi.org/10. 1111/pala.12353Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. 2000. A survey of primary homology assessment: different botanists perceive and define characters in different ways. In: Scotland, RW. & Pennington, RT. (eds), Homology & Systematics: Coding Characters for Phylogenetic Analysis. Taylor and Francis, London, pp. 2253.Google Scholar
Hawkins, JA., Hughes, CE. & Scotland, RW. 1997. Primary homology, characters and character states. Cladistics 13: 275283.Google Scholar
Hulsenbeck, JP. 1995. Performance of phylogenetic methods in simulation. Systematic Biology 44: 1748.Google Scholar
Kluge, AG. & Farris, JS. 1969. Quantitative phyletics and the evolution of Anurans. Systematic Zoology 18: 132.Google Scholar
Kuhner, MK. & Felsenstein, J. 1994. A simulation comparison of phylogeny algorithms under equal and unequal evolutionary rates. Molecular Biology and Evolution 11: 459468.Google ScholarPubMed
Laing, AM., Doyle, S., Gold, MEL., Nesbitt, SJ., O’Leary, MA., Turner, AH., Wilberg, EW. & Poole, KE. 2017. Giant taxon-character matrices: the future of morphological systematics. Cladistics 34: 333335.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lin, YS., Chen, DY., Fan, QS. & Zhang, HW. 2009. Characterization of SoxB2 and SoxC genes in Amphioxus (Branchiostoma belcheri): implications for their evolutionary conservation. Science in China, Series C: Life Sciences 52: 813822.Google ScholarPubMed
Meacham, CA. 1980. Phylogeny of the Berberidaceae with an evaluation of classifications. Systematic Botany 5: 149172.Google Scholar
Meacham, CA. & Estabrook, GF. 1985. Compatibility methods in systematics. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 16: 431446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, GJ. 2004. Cladistics: its arrested development. In: Williams, DM. & Forey, PL. (eds) Milestones in Systematics. CRC Press, Florida, pp. 127147.Google Scholar
Nixon, KC. & Carpenter, JM. 2000. On the other “Phylogenetic Systematics”. Cladistics 16: 298318.Google Scholar
Nixon, KC. & Carpenter, JM. 2012a. On homology. Cladistics 28: 160169.Google Scholar
Nixon, KC. & Carpenter, JM. 2012b. More on errors. Cladistics 28: 539544.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nixon, KC. & Carpenter, JM. 2012c. More on homology. Cladistics 28: 225226.Google Scholar
Patterson, C. 1982. Morphological characters and homology. In: Joysey, KA. & Friday, AE. (eds), Problems of Phylogenetic Reconstruction. Academic Press, London, pp. 2174.Google Scholar
Rieppel, O. 2008. Re-writing Popper’s philosophy of science for systematics. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 30: 293316.Google Scholar
Rogers, DJ. 1963. Taximetrics – new name, old concept. Brittonia 15: 285290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ronquist, F., Huelsenbeck, J. & Teslenko, M. 2011. MrBayes version 3.2 Manual: Tutorials and Model Summaries (November 15, 2011). http://mrbayes.sourceforge.net/mb3.2_manual.pdfGoogle Scholar
Schrago, CG., Aguiar, BO. & Mello, B. 2018. Comparative evaluation of maximum parsimony and Bayesian phylogenetic reconstruction using empirical morphological data. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 31: 14771484.Google Scholar
Simões, TR., Caldwell, MW., Palci, A. & Nydam, RL. 2017a. Giant taxon-character matrices: quality of character constructions remains critical regardless of size. Cladistics 33: 198219.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simões, TR., Caldwell, MW., Palci, A. & Nydam, RL. 2017b. Giant taxon-character matrices II: a response to Laing et al. (2017). Cladistics 34: 702707.Google Scholar
Sokal, RR. 1986. Phenetic taxonomy: theory and methods. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 17: 423442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sokal, RR. & Sneath, PHA. 1963. Principles of Numerical Taxonomy. W.H. Freeman, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Wheeler, WC. 2012. Systematics: A Course of Lectures. Wiley & Co, Chichester.Google Scholar
Williams, DM. & Ebach, MC. 2005. Drowning by numbers: rereading Nelson’s “Nullius in Verba”. Botanical Review 71: 415477.Google Scholar
Williams, DM., Ebach, MC. & Wheeler, QD. 2010. Beyond belief. In: Williams, DM. & Knapp, S. (eds), Beyond Cladistics. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp. 169197.Google Scholar
Winsor, MP. 2015a. Considering affinity: an ethereal conversation (part one of three). Endeavour 39: 6979.Google Scholar
Winsor, MP. 2015b. Considering affinity: an ethereal conversation (part two of three). Endeavour 39: 116126.Google Scholar
Winsor, MP. 2015c. Considering affinity: an ethereal conversation (part three of three). Endeavour 39: 179187.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wright, AM. & Hillis, DM. 2014. Bayesian analysis using a simple likelihood model outperforms parsimony for estimation of phylogeny from discrete morphological data. PLoS One 9: e109210.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Further Reading

Readers who are interested in ‘point-and-click’ guidance should seek other sources in addition to this book. In all honesty, we cannot recommend any of the methods discussed by these authors as they are all approaches to artificial classification rather than natural classification, the latter being the subject we are interested in. We are, therefore, a little reluctant to suggest any single book (and there are very many), but perhaps those below are at least representative of what to expect. In any case, we suggest reading them with a critical eye – if so, it should not take too long to come to the conclusion the subject, as conceived via these contributions, is ‘drowning in number’ (Williams & Ebach 2005).

Although comprehensive, now a remarkable 15 years old, it lacks some of the developments of the past decade. As far as we are aware, Felsenstein is not planning any revised version.

Each edition was reviewed extensively with mixed reception. We suggest reading a few reviews then proceed with caution.

As a further note of caution, neither of these two books discuss classification (or taxonomy) in the sense we explore in this book.

Felsenstein, J. 2004. Inferring Phylogenies. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA.Google Scholar
Hall, B. 2017. Phylogenetic Trees Made Easy: A How-To Manual. 5th ed. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar

Phenetics

The best we can offer on this subject is Sokal and Sneath’s two books. These are now quite old but both worth dipping into for a comprehensive view of how phenetics began, why it began, what it hoped to achieve, how it developed and flourished under the ‘numerical taxonomy’ umbrella, and – in part – its apparent slide into ‘phylogenetics’. Above we suggested that Felsenstein’s Inferring Phylogenies should be considered the third in this series of books, a view we still hold (Williams et al. 2010). None of these books is without value, if read critically – even if that value is to understand how the first wave of numerical taxonomy lost its way, and, more crucially, how the second wave persists in misleading others.

Steussy’s book has a more up-to-date summary of phenetics.

Sneath, PHA. & Sokal, RR. 1973. Numerical Taxonomy. Freeman, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Sokal, RR. & Sneath, PHA. 1963. Principles of Numerical Taxonomy. W.H. Freeman, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Steussy, T. 2010. Plant Taxonomy: The Systematic Evaluation of Comparative Data. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar

Weighted Phenetics (Parsimony)

There are several books that focus on parsimony, as understood and implemented by the Wagner Parsimony algorithm (e.g., Farris 1983), such as Biological Systematics: Principles and Applications, which is the best available (Schuh and Brower 2009). We have listed all editions below – the 3rd edition is due in 2021 (Brower and Schuh 2021). Another recent contribution is Caetano-Anollés et al. (2018).

There are a few books that follow Willi Hennig’s original version of Phylogenetic Systematics more closely, and differ considerably from what has been called ‘modern cladistics’ (by Nixon and Carpenter, 2012a, for example). It is perhaps incorrect (and maybe inaccurate) to include them here, but we do not want these books to disappear from sight. These authors are critical of ‘modern cladistics’ as discussed above under ‘weighted phenetics’ (parsimony). It is worth noting, somewhat inexplicably, that neither Mikoleit nor Wiesemüller et al. have been translated into English. They both deserve an English translation.

Wagner Parsimony

Brower, A. & Shuh, T. 2021. Biological Systematics: Principles and Applications. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
Caetano-Anollés, G., Nasir, A., Kim, KM. & Caetano-Anollés, D. 2018. Rooting phylogenies and the tree of life while minimizing ad hoc and auxiliary assumptions. Evolutionary Bioinformatics 14: 121.Google Scholar
Farris, JS. 1983. The logical basis of phylogenetic analysis. In: Platnick, NI. & Funk, VA. (eds), Advances in Cladistics II. Columbia University Press, New York, pp. 736.Google Scholar
Schuh, T. 1999. Biological Systematics: Principles and Applications. Comstock Publishing Associates, New York.Google Scholar
Schuh, T. & Brower, A. 2009. Biological Systematics: Principles and Applications. Comstock Publishing Associates, New York.Google Scholar

Hennig

Borkent, A. 2018. The state of phylogenetic analysis: narrow visions and simple answers – examples from the Diptera (flies). Zootaxa 4374(1): 107143.Google Scholar
Disney, RHL. 2003. Is not Hennig’s method of producing cladograms as defensible as those derived from parsimony algorithms? Bonner zoologische Beiträge 50: 305311.Google Scholar
Hennig, W. 1966. Phylogenetic Systematics. University of Illinois Press, Champaign[reprinted in 1979 and 1999 with a new Preface].Google Scholar
Kraus, O. 1998. Elucidating the historical process of phylogeny: Phylogenetic Systematics versus cladistic techniques. In: Selden, PA. (ed.), Proceedings of the 17th European Colloquium of Arachnology, Edinburgh 1997. British Arachnological Society, Burnham Beeches, pp. 17.Google Scholar
Mikoleit, G. 2004. Phylogenetische Systematik der Wirbeltiere. Dr. Friedrich Pfeil, Munich.Google Scholar
Wägele, W. 2001. Grundlagen der Phylogenetischen Systematik. Dr. Friedrich Pfeil, Munich.Google Scholar
Wägele, W. 2005. Foundations of Phylogenetic Systematics. Dr. Friedrich Pfeil, Munich.Google Scholar
Wiesemüller, B., Rothe, H. & Hencke, W. 2003. Phylogenetische Systematik: Eine Einführung. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.Google Scholar

Weighted Phenetics (Compatibility)

Sadly, the development of compatibility methods was truncated after it was ferociously (and somewhat unfairly) attacked in the mid-1980s, mostly in the pages of Taxon (primarily between 1984 and 1986). Many empirical studies were published in Systematic Botany, and it is worth perusing back issues of that journal for examples. From the vast literature on the subject, we recommend the papers by Le Quesne (1979), Meacham (1980) and the summary in Felsenstein (1982, pp. 389–393), as they are all, if a little dated, clearly written. The Meacham & Estabrook review (1985) is also a bit dated but still worth a glance, as is Scotland & Steel (2015), for its recent discussion, and Williams & Ebach (2017), who generalise the issue. Patterson explored compatibility in terms of homology testing (1982, 1988).

It is worth noting that when reading papers on compatibility one must distinguish between the method of analysis and some of the ideas its proponents expressed about how to and what to classify. For example, their discussions concerning the necessity of ‘convex groups’ in classification is really a defence of paraphyly and promoted as support for what was referred to as ‘traditional evolutionary classification’ (Meacham & Duncan 1987, for commentary see Wiley 1981 and 2009). In this they were mistaken (see Chapters 3–5) but it should not detract from the general usefulness of the method.

Felsenstein, J. 1982. Numerical methods for inferring evolutionary trees. Quarterly Review of Biology 57: 379404.Google Scholar
Le Quesne, WJ. 1979. Compatibility analysis and the uniquely derived character concept. Systematic Zoology 28: 9294.Google Scholar
Meacham, CA. 1980. Phylogeny of the Berberidaceae with an evaluation of classifications. Systematic Botany 5: 149172.Google Scholar
Meacham, CA. & Duncan, T. 1987. The necessity of convex groups in biological classification. Systematic Botany 12: 7890.Google Scholar
Meacham, CA. & Estabrook, GF. 1985. Compatibility methods in systematics. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 16: 431446.Google Scholar
Patterson, C. 1982. Morphological characters and homology. In: Joysey, KA. & Friday, AE. (eds), Problems of Phylogenetic Reconstruction. London: Academic Press, pp. 2174.Google Scholar
Patterson, C. 1988. Homology in classical and molecular biology. Molecular Biology and Evolution 5: 603625.Google Scholar
Scotland, RW. & Steel, M. 2015. Circumstances in which parsimony but not compatibility will be provably misleading. Systematic Biology 64: 492504.Google Scholar
Williams, DM. & Ebach, MC. 2017. What is intuitive taxonomic practice? Systematic Biology 66: 637643.Google Scholar
Wiley, EO. 1981. Convex groups and consistent classifications. Systematic Botany 6: 346358.Google Scholar
Wiley, EO. 2009. Patrocladistics, nothing new. Taxon 58: 26.Google Scholar

Weighted Phenetics (Phylogeny – ‘Model’ Methods)

We have already mentioned the books by Felsenstein and Hall. We could add Baum and Smiths’s Tree Thinking: An Introduction to Phylogenetic Biology (Baum & Smith 2012) and Ward Wheeler’s Systematics: A Course of Lectures (Wheeler 2012). All four of these books are quite different from one another but each has extended discussions on the modelling approach and some delve into theory here and there – but caveat lector: these books primarily focus on phylogeny to the exclusion of classification. There are some philosophical contributions such as Sober (1988 and 2015, but see Brower 2017).

There are many highly technical (that is mathematical) books available, and it is beyond our ability (and stamina!) to make recommendations from this veritable mountain of literature. These are just a selection (we have resisted noting any of the numerous books on phylogenomics, see Box 10.3 for our brief comments on that topic). Interested readers who feel the urge to explore phylogenetic modelling might dip into any of the following:

Books of this kind are numerous, reading them is exhausted only by your purse, your enthusiasm or your patience – whichever is the greater. We are compelled to note that, from our perspective, there is not much to recommend here for the taxonomist. Our advice: spend your money on a field trip!

Baum, DA. & Smith, SD. 2012. Tree Thinking: An Introduction to Phylogenetic Biology. Roberts, Greenwood Village, CO.Google Scholar
Brower, AVZ. 2017. “Parsimony be damned!”. Cladistics 33: 667670.Google Scholar
Cadette, MW. & Davies, TJ. 2016. Phylogenies in Ecology: A Guide to Concepts and Methods. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
Huson, DH., Regula, R. & Scornavacca, C. 2010. Phylogenetic Networks. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lemey, P. 2009. The Phylogenetic Handbook. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
Semple, C. & Steel, M. 2003. Phylogenetics. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Sober, E. 1988. Reconstructing the Past: Parsimony, Evolution and Inference. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Sober, E. 2015. Ockham’s Razors: A User’s Manual. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
Steel, M. 2016. Phylogeny: Discrete and Random Processes in Evolution. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warnow, T. 2017. Computational Phylogenetics: An Introduction to Designing Methods for Phylogeny Estimation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wheeler, W. 2012. Systematics: A Course of Lectures. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×