Hostname: page-component-5cf477f64f-rdph2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-04T04:23:03.993Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

TAXONOMIC METHODS: RELATIVE WEIGHTS APPLIED TO CHARACTERS BY CLASSICAL TAXONOMISTS IN THE GENUS IPHISEIUS BERLESE (ACARINA: PHYTOSEIIDAE)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

Roger I. C. Hansell  and
D. A. Chant
Roger I. C. Hansell
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario
D. A. Chant
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Conflicting taxonomic decisions by classical systematists in the genus Iphiseius are examined against a numerical model. The relative weights given to characters are estimated by the amount each character must be changed to minimally permit each classical taxonomic decision. In the genus Iphiseius the taxonomic disagreements are due to heavy weighting of different small sets of characters based on groupings of historically prior clustering cycles.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 105 , Issue 5 , May 1973 , pp. 775 - 785
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1973

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

Banks, N. 1904. A treatise on the Acarina or mites. Proc. U.S. natn. Mus., Vol. 28, 114 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banks, N. 1905. Descriptions of some new mites. Proc. ent. Soc. Wash. 7: 133–142.Google Scholar
Berlese, A. 1881. Atti R. Inst. Ven. Lett. Art. (5) VII: 37.Google Scholar
Berlese, A. 1887. Acari, Myriopoda et Scorpiones in Italia. Fasc 41.Google Scholar
Berlese, A. 1889. Acari, Myriopoda et Scorpiones in Italia. Fasc 54.Google Scholar
Berlese, A. 1913. Acarotheca italica. D. M. Ricci. Firenze. 221 pp.Google Scholar
Berlese, A. 1916. Centuria prima di acari nuovi. Redia 12: 19–67.Google Scholar
Berlese, A. 1921. Acari, Myriapoda et Pseudoscorpiones. Indice Sinonimico. Redia 14: 95.Google Scholar
Camin, J. H. and Sokal, R. R.. 1965. A method for deducing branching sequences in phylogeny. Evolution 19: 311–327.Google Scholar
Chant, D. A. 1955. Notes on mites of the genus Typhlodromus Scheuten, 1857, with descriptions of the males of some species and the female of a new species. Can. Ent. 87: 496–503.Google Scholar
Chant, D. A. 1956. Some new mites of the subfamily Phytoseiinae from southeastern England, with descriptions of new species. Can. Ent. 88: 26–37.Google Scholar
Chant, D. A. 1957 a. Descriptions of some phytoseiid mites. Parts I and II. Can. Ent. 89: 289–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chant, D. A. 1957 b. Note on the status of some genera in the family Phytoseiidae (Acarina). Can. Enr. 89: 528–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chant, D. A. 1957 c. Descriptions of two new phytoseiid genera, with a note on the genus Phytoseius Ribaga, 1902. Can. Ent. 89: 357–363.Google Scholar
Chant, D. A. 1959 a. Observations sur la famille des Phytoseiidae. Acarologia 1: 11–23.Google Scholar
Chant, D. A. 1959 b. Phytoseiid mites. Parts I and II. Can. Ent. Suppl. 12. 166 pp.Google Scholar
Chant, D. A. 1965. Generic concepts in the family Phytoseiidae. Can. Ent. 97: 351–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cunliffe, F. and Baker, E. W.. 1953. A guide to the predatory phytoseiid mites of the United States. Publ. Pinellas Biol. Lab., No. 1. 28 pp.Google Scholar
DeLeon, D. 1966. Phytoseiidae of British Guyana with keys to species (Acarina, Mesostigmata), in Studies on the Fauna of Suriname and Other Guyanas. Vol. 8, pp. 81–102.Google Scholar
Evans, G. O. 1954. The genus Iphiseius Ber. (Acarina: Laelaptidae). Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 124: 517–526.Google Scholar
Farris, J. S. 1970. Methods for computing Wagner trees. Syst. Zool. 1: 83–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garman, P. 1948. Mite species from apple trees in Connecticut. Bull. Conn. agric. Exp. Stn, No. 520. pp. 1–27.Google Scholar
Hansell, R. I. C. 1970 (unpub.). New methods for comparative systematic studies of Phytoseiid mites (Acarina, Mesostigmata). Ph.D. Thesis, University of California, at Riverside. 97 pp.Google Scholar
Hansell, R. I. C. and Ewing, B.. The detection and estimation of character weighting in classifications. J. theoret. Biol. (in press).Google Scholar
Hansell, R. I. C. and Chant, D. A.. A method for estimating relative weights applied to characters by classical taxonomists. J. syst. Zool. (in press).Google Scholar
Inglis, W. G. 1970. The purpose and judgments of biological classifications. Syst. Zool. 19: 240–250.Google Scholar
Muma, M. 1955. Phytoseiidae associated with citrus in Florida. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 48: 262–272.Google Scholar
Muma, M. 1961. Subfamilies, genera, and species of Phytoseiidae. Bull. Fla St. Mus. 5: 267–302.Google Scholar
Muma, M. 1962. New Phytoseiidae from Florida. Fla Ent. 45: 1–10.Google Scholar
Muma, M. 1963. Theoretic phylogeny of the Phytoseiidae, in Naegele, John A. (Ed.), Advances in Acarology. Cornell Univ. Press, Ithaca. pp. 392–398.Google Scholar
Muma, M. and Denmark, H. A.. 1968. Some generic descriptions and name changes in the family Phytoseiidae (Acarina: Mesostigmata). Fla Ent. 51: 229–240.Google Scholar
Oudemans, A. C. 1902. New list of Dutch Acari. Tijdschr. Ent. 45: 1–52.Google Scholar
Oudemans, A. C. 1905. Bizonderheden over bekende en nieuwe Acari. Tijdschr. Ent. 48: 77–81.Google Scholar
Oudemans, A. C. 1915. Acarologische aanteekeningen 56. Ent. Ber., Amst. 4: 180–188.Google Scholar
Pritchard, E. and Baker, E.. 1962. Mites of the family Phytoseiidae from Central Africa, with remarks on the genera of the world. Hilgardia 33: 205–309.Google Scholar
Scheuten, A. 1857. Einiges uber milben. Arch. Naturg. 23: 104–112.Google Scholar
Schuster, R. and Pritchard, E.. 1963. Phytoseiid mites of California. Hilgardia 34: 191–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sokal, R. and Sneath, P. H. A.. 1963. The principles of numerical taxonomy. Freeman, San Francisco. 359 pp.Google Scholar
Throckmorton, L. H. 1968. Concordance and discordance of taxonomic characters in Drosophila classification. Syst. Zool. 17: 355–387.Google Scholar
Wainstein, A. 1962. Revision du genre Typhlodromus Scheuten et systematique de la famille des Phytoseiidae. Acarologia 4: 5–30.Google Scholar
Westerboer, I. and Bernhard, F.. 1963. Die familie Phytoseiidae Berlese. Part II, Mesostigmata I. Acad. Verlags., Leipzig. pp. 451–777.Google Scholar