DOCSLIB.ORG

The Logical Basis of Phylogenetic Taxonomy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Logical Basis of Phylogenetic Taxonomy Syst. Biol. 54(4):595–619, 2005 Copyright c Society of Systematic Biologists ISSN: 1063-5157 print / 1076-836X online DOI: 10.1080/106351591007453 The Logical Basis of Phylogenetic Taxonomy PAUL C. SERENO Department of Organismal Biology and Anatomy, University of Chicago, 1027 E. 57th Street, Chicago, Illinois 60637, USA; E-mail: [email protected] Abstract.—Phylogenetic taxonomy, like modern Linnean taxonomy, was modeled on a phylogenetic tree rather than a cladogram and, like its predecessor, perpetuates the use of morphology as a means of recognizing clades. Both practices have generated confusion in graphical representation, operational terminology, and definitional rationale in phylogenetic taxonomy, the history of which is traced. The following points are made: (1) cladograms, rather than trees or hybrid clado- Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/sysbio/article/54/4/595/2842925 by guest on 26 September 2021 gram-trees, provide the framework for the simplest graphical depiction of phylogenetic definitions; (2) a complete notational scheme for phylogenetic definitions is presented that distinguishes symbolic notation from shorthand and longhand versions; (3) phylogenetic definitions are composed of three components (paradigm, specifier, qualifier) arranged in two fundamental patterns—node and stem; (4) apomorphies do not constitute a fundamental definitional pattern but rather serve to qualify a stem-based definition (as do time and geographic range); (5) formulation of phylogenetic definitions involves three heuristic criteria (stability, simplicity, prior use); (6) reasoned definitional revision is encouraged and better defined (textual substi- tution, first- and second-order revision); and (7) a database, TaxonSearch, allows rapid recall of taxonomic and definitional information. [Content; definition; node; notation; PhyloCode; stem; taxonomy; TaxonSearch.] Phylogenetic taxonomy, as originally conceived does not entail endorsement of either phylogenetic tax- (Gauthier et al., 1988; de Queiroz and Gauthier, 1990, onomy or phylogenetic nomenclature. 1992) and as currently formalized in a draft code of nomenclature (draft PhyloCode, hereafter “dPC”; THEORETICAL FOUNDATION Cantino and de Queiroz, 2004), has not fully disen- gaged from two longstanding traditions of modern Phylogenetic taxonomy was founded on (1) the dis- Linnean taxonomy: (1) recourse to a phylogenetic tree tinction between taxonomic diagnosis and definition and ancestor-descendant lineages in graphical depic- (Ghiselin, 1966, 1984) and (2) a protocol for formulating tions and terminological definitions and (2) the contin- taxonomic definitions based on the branching topology ued use of morphology in addition to phylogeny in clade of phylogeny that identifies specific clades (de Queiroz recognition. and Gauthier, 1990, 1992). A brief history outlining how As shown below, these shortcomings have generated each of these founding propositions has fared is given be- unnecessary interpretive complexity, a flawed abbre- low. Both arose in direct response to the use of Linnean viational scheme, and the false equation of apomor- categorical ranks and the construction of trait-based tax- phies and taxonomic entities in phylogenetic definitions. onomic diagnoses, as practiced in traditional (precladis- Rather than addressing these fundamental issues re- tic) Linnean taxonomy and phylogenetic systematics. garding the logical foundations of phylogenetic defini- Other aspects of phylogenetic taxonomy are not novel, tions, advocates of the PhyloCode have focused their although sometimes misinterpreted as such. Restricting attention elsewhere: retrofitting “widely used” names to taxa to monophyletic groups (clades) that are presumed crown clades, devising associated naming conventions to have arisen from a common ancestor, for example, (e.g., “pan” prefix, “gens” suffix), revising/discarding is certainly not a proposition new to phylogenetic tax- the Linnean binomen, elaborating procedures for def- onomy but rather central to phylogenetic systematics initional priority, and establishing an official registry (Wiley, 1981; Scotland, 1992; Nixon and Carpenter, 2000, of phylogenetic definitions for new and converted taxa 2003). Discarding Linnean categorical ranks or redun- (Cantino et al., 1999; Gauthier and de Queiroz, 2001; dant (monotypic) taxa, likewise, is hardly unique to phy- Laurin and Anderson, 2004; Laurin and Cantino, 2004). logenetic taxonomy. Hennig (1966) and others (Nelson, In this article, “phylogenetic taxonomy” refers to the 1972; Farris, 1976; Løvtrup, 1977; Wiley, 1981; Avise and logic and procedures underpinning the construction of Johns, 1999) have offered a range of proposals to elimi- taxonomic definitions on the basis of phylogeny (de nate redundant taxa and either eliminate rank altogether Queiroz and Gauthier, 1992). Phylogenetic taxonomy or calibrate it with less arbitrary temporal or topological per se does not entail endorsement of a formalized information (for a recent review, see Ereshefsky, 2001). code governing taxonomic definitions (i.e., the dPC), for which the term “phylogenetic nomenclature” is reserved Diagnosis Versus Definition (de Queiroz and Gauthier, 1994). Neither of these terms Recently, Keller et al. (2003) provided an excellent his- should be confused or conflated with “phylogenetic sys- torical review of the debate regarding diagnosis and defi- tematics,” which has been widely used to refer to the gen- nition in taxonomy, so only a few key references are cited eral practice of Hennigian cladistics in the determination here. The argument is rooted in the philosophical posi- of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic systematics tion that taxa (including species) represent individuals 595 596 SYSTEMATIC BIOLOGY VOL. 54 rather than classes (Ghiselin, 1966, 1974; Hull, 1976). Tax- sary and sufficient properties,” although this amounts to onomy, it followed, might better be viewed as an ex- a subtle distinction in so-called apomorphy-based defini- ercise in “systematization” rather than “classification” tions. To discern group membership one needs a branch- (Griffiths, 1974). ing diagram—an independent description of phylogeny In classification, diagnoses are used to delineate taxon based on observed characters. Most phylogenetic defini- membership on the basis of traits. Shared traits, hence, tions provide little or no information about identifying function at first glance like Aristotelian essences, as nec- traits within a clade. essary and sufficient properties for membership (Hull, Taxonomic diagnoses and phylogenetic definitions, 1965; de Queiroz and Gauthier, 1990; de Queiroz, 1992, thus, are readily distinguished operationally and, as a 1994). Indeed, this was clearly Linneaus’ original inten- result, are the subject of vigorous polemic over which tion (Ereshefsky, 2001). In reality, however, shared traits will provide a better foundation for delineation of taxa. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/sysbio/article/54/4/595/2842925 by guest on 26 September 2021 are rarely unique and nearly always subject to trans- Their philosophical underpinning, in contrast, seems not formation, loss, or dissociation. Linnean taxonomic di- to have affected proponents of either view and may well agnoses under an evolutionary paradigm, thus, operate remain an ineffective means to prefer one to the other. more like disjunctive definitions, in which some, but not all, traits are sufficient for group membership. If, on the other hand, taxa constitute unique histori- Protocol for Phylogenetic Definitions cal individuals produced by a natural system (biological Initial definitions.—The first phylogenetic definitions evolution), and if taxonomy is an attempt to capture the were coined prior to the appearance of a protocol for their singular tree of life, then taxa could be defined by some formulation. They appeared (ironically) within lengthy other means than shared traits—say, by the topology of taxonomic diagnoses in an analysis of saurischian di- the tree of life itself. Although the branching pattern nosaurs (Gauthier, 1986). Aves (in this case, crown-group of phylogeny remains a hypothesis subject to revision birds) was given a node-based definition, although def- and competing arrangements, a phylogenetic definition initional types had not yet been named. Six other def- could aspire to point to one, and only one, clade for initions were given, all stem-based and all delimiting any given phylogeny. In this way, taxa could be defined taxa whose basal members were extinct (Saurischia, ostensively simply by “pointing at them” (Ghiselin, 1974, Theropoda, Tetanurae, Coelurosauria, Maniraptora, 1995; de Queiroz, 1988a; de Queiroz and Gauthier, 1990). Ornithurae). Linnean categorical ranks were eliminated. Later, the relationship between a phylogenetic definition Gauthier et al. (1988) and Estes et al. (1988) pub- and its designated taxon was interpreted as nominalist, lished 35 phylogenetic definitions for Lepidosauromor- such that a taxon was merely an abbreviation for its def- pha and its major subgroups, clearly distinguishing inition, which amounts to a description based on mono- definition from diagnosis (see also de Queiroz, 1988a). phyly (de Queiroz, 1992, 1994). Others have countered Definitions now regarded as node-based were used that constructing such taxonomic definitions is as essen- exclusively for crown groups; stem-based definitions tialist as trait-based diagnoses (Frost and Kluge, 1994), were used sparingly for a few higher taxa with ex- because “they appear to be
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Ecological Correlates of Ghost Lineages in Ruminants
    Paleobiology, 38(1), 2012, pp. 101–111 Ecological correlates of ghost lineages in ruminants Juan L. Cantalapiedra, Manuel Herna´ndez Ferna´ndez, Gema M. Alcalde, Beatriz Azanza, Daniel DeMiguel, and Jorge Morales Abstract.—Integration between phylogenetic systematics and paleontological data has proved to be an effective method for identifying periods that lack fossil evidence in the evolutionary history of clades. In this study we aim to analyze whether there is any correlation between various ecomorphological variables and the duration of these underrepresented portions of lineages, which we call ghost lineages for simplicity, in ruminants. Analyses within phylogenetic (Generalized Estimating Equations) and non-phylogenetic (ANOVAs and Pearson correlations) frameworks were performed on the whole phylogeny of this suborder of Cetartiodactyla (Mammalia). This is the first time ghost lineages are focused in this way. To test the robustness of our data, we compared the magnitude of ghost lineages among different continents and among phylogenies pruned at different ages (4, 8, 12, 16, and 20 Ma). Differences in mean ghost lineage were not significantly related to either geographic or temporal factors. Our results indicate that the proportion of the known fossil record in ruminants appears to be influenced by the preservation potential of the bone remains in different environments. Furthermore, large geographical ranges of species increase the likelihood of preservation. Juan L. Cantalapiedra, Gema Alcalde, and Jorge Morales. Departamento de Paleobiologı´a, Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, UCM-CSIC, Pinar 25, 28006 Madrid, Spain. E-mail: [email protected] Manuel Herna´ndez Ferna´ndez. Departamento de Paleontologı´a, Facultad de Ciencias Geolo´gicas, Universidad Complutense de Madrid y Departamento de Cambio Medioambiental, Instituto de Geociencias, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientı´ficas, Jose´ Antonio Novais 2, 28040 Madrid, Spain Daniel DeMiguel.
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture Notes: the Mathematics of Phylogenetics
    Lecture Notes: The Mathematics of Phylogenetics Elizabeth S. Allman, John A. Rhodes IAS/Park City Mathematics Institute June-July, 2005 University of Alaska Fairbanks Spring 2009, 2012, 2016 c 2005, Elizabeth S. Allman and John A. Rhodes ii Contents 1 Sequences and Molecular Evolution 3 1.1 DNA structure . .4 1.2 Mutations . .5 1.3 Aligned Orthologous Sequences . .7 2 Combinatorics of Trees I 9 2.1 Graphs and Trees . .9 2.2 Counting Binary Trees . 14 2.3 Metric Trees . 15 2.4 Ultrametric Trees and Molecular Clocks . 17 2.5 Rooting Trees with Outgroups . 18 2.6 Newick Notation . 19 2.7 Exercises . 20 3 Parsimony 25 3.1 The Parsimony Criterion . 25 3.2 The Fitch-Hartigan Algorithm . 28 3.3 Informative Characters . 33 3.4 Complexity . 35 3.5 Weighted Parsimony . 36 3.6 Recovering Minimal Extensions . 38 3.7 Further Issues . 39 3.8 Exercises . 40 4 Combinatorics of Trees II 45 4.1 Splits and Clades . 45 4.2 Refinements and Consensus Trees . 49 4.3 Quartets . 52 4.4 Supertrees . 53 4.5 Final Comments . 54 4.6 Exercises . 55 iii iv CONTENTS 5 Distance Methods 57 5.1 Dissimilarity Measures . 57 5.2 An Algorithmic Construction: UPGMA . 60 5.3 Unequal Branch Lengths . 62 5.4 The Four-point Condition . 66 5.5 The Neighbor Joining Algorithm . 70 5.6 Additional Comments . 72 5.7 Exercises . 73 6 Probabilistic Models of DNA Mutation 81 6.1 A first example . 81 6.2 Markov Models on Trees . 87 6.3 Jukes-Cantor and Kimura Models .
    [Show full text]
  • Taxon Ordering in Phylogenetic Trees by Means of Evolutionary Algorithms Francesco Cerutti1,2, Luigi Bertolotti1,2, Tony L Goldberg3 and Mario Giacobini1,2*
    Cerutti et al. BioData Mining 2011, 4:20 http://www.biodatamining.org/content/4/1/20 BioData Mining RESEARCH Open Access Taxon ordering in phylogenetic trees by means of evolutionary algorithms Francesco Cerutti1,2, Luigi Bertolotti1,2, Tony L Goldberg3 and Mario Giacobini1,2* * Correspondence: mario. Abstract [email protected] 1 Department of Animal Production, Background: In in a typical “left-to-right” phylogenetic tree, the vertical order of taxa Epidemiology and Ecology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University is meaningless, as only the branch path between them reflects their degree of of Torino, Via Leonardo da Vinci similarity. To make unresolved trees more informative, here we propose an 44, 10095, Grugliasco (TO), Italy innovative Evolutionary Algorithm (EA) method to search the best graphical Full list of author information is available at the end of the article representation of unresolved trees, in order to give a biological meaning to the vertical order of taxa. Methods: Starting from a West Nile virus phylogenetic tree, in a (1 + 1)-EA we evolved it by randomly rotating the internal nodes and selecting the tree with better fitness every generation. The fitness is a sum of genetic distances between the considered taxon and the r (radius) next taxa. After having set the radius to the best performance, we evolved the trees with (l + μ)-EAs to study the influence of population on the algorithm. Results: The (1 + 1)-EA consistently outperformed a random search, and better results were obtained setting the radius to 8. The (l + μ)-EAs performed as well as the (1 + 1), except the larger population (1000 + 1000).
    [Show full text]
  • A New Xinjiangchelyid Turtle from the Middle Jurassic of Xinjiang, China and the Evolution of the Basipterygoid Process in Mesozoic Turtles Rabi Et Al
    A new xinjiangchelyid turtle from the Middle Jurassic of Xinjiang, China and the evolution of the basipterygoid process in Mesozoic turtles Rabi et al. Rabi et al. BMC Evolutionary Biology 2013, 13:203 http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/13/203 Rabi et al. BMC Evolutionary Biology 2013, 13:203 http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/13/203 RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access A new xinjiangchelyid turtle from the Middle Jurassic of Xinjiang, China and the evolution of the basipterygoid process in Mesozoic turtles Márton Rabi1,2*, Chang-Fu Zhou3, Oliver Wings4, Sun Ge3 and Walter G Joyce1,5 Abstract Background: Most turtles from the Middle and Late Jurassic of Asia are referred to the newly defined clade Xinjiangchelyidae, a group of mostly shell-based, generalized, small to mid-sized aquatic froms that are widely considered to represent the stem lineage of Cryptodira. Xinjiangchelyids provide us with great insights into the plesiomorphic anatomy of crown-cryptodires, the most diverse group of living turtles, and they are particularly relevant for understanding the origin and early divergence of the primary clades of extant turtles. Results: Exceptionally complete new xinjiangchelyid material from the ?Qigu Formation of the Turpan Basin (Xinjiang Autonomous Province, China) provides new insights into the anatomy of this group and is assigned to Xinjiangchelys wusu n. sp. A phylogenetic analysis places Xinjiangchelys wusu n. sp. in a monophyletic polytomy with other xinjiangchelyids, including Xinjiangchelys junggarensis, X. radiplicatoides, X. levensis and X. latiens. However, the analysis supports the unorthodox, though tentative placement of xinjiangchelyids and sinemydids outside of crown-group Testudines. A particularly interesting new observation is that the skull of this xinjiangchelyid retains such primitive features as a reduced interpterygoid vacuity and basipterygoid processes.
    [Show full text]
  • Phylogeny of a Rapidly Evolving Clade: the Cichlid Fishes of Lake Malawi
    Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA Vol. 96, pp. 5107–5110, April 1999 Evolution Phylogeny of a rapidly evolving clade: The cichlid fishes of Lake Malawi, East Africa (adaptive radiationysexual selectionyspeciationyamplified fragment length polymorphismylineage sorting) R. C. ALBERTSON,J.A.MARKERT,P.D.DANLEY, AND T. D. KOCHER† Department of Zoology and Program in Genetics, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH 03824 Communicated by John C. Avise, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, March 12, 1999 (received for review December 17, 1998) ABSTRACT Lake Malawi contains a flock of >500 spe- sponsible for speciation, then we expect that sister taxa will cies of cichlid fish that have evolved from a common ancestor frequently differ in color pattern but not morphology. within the last million years. The rapid diversification of this Most attempts to determine the relationships among cichlid group has been attributed to morphological adaptation and to species have used morphological characters, which may be sexual selection, but the relative timing and importance of prone to convergence (8). Molecular sequences normally these mechanisms is not known. A phylogeny of the group provide the independent estimate of phylogeny needed to infer would help identify the role each mechanism has played in the evolutionary mechanisms. The Lake Malawi cichlids, however, evolution of the flock. Previous attempts to reconstruct the are speciating faster than alleles can become fixed within a relationships among these taxa using molecular methods have species (9, 10). The coalescence of mtDNA haplotypes found been frustrated by the persistence of ancestral polymorphisms within populations predates the origin of many species (11). In within species.
    [Show full text]
  • University of Copenhagen, Øster Voldgade 10, DK-1350 Copenhagen K, Denmark
    Triassic lithostratigraphy of the Jameson Land Basin (central East Greenland), with emphasis on the new Fleming Fjord Group Clemmensen, Lars B.; Kent, Dennis W.; Mau, Malte; Mateus, Octávio; Milàn, Jesper Published in: Bulletin of the Geological Society of Denmark DOI: 10.37570/bgsd-2020-68-05 Publication date: 2020 Document version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Document license: CC BY Citation for published version (APA): Clemmensen, L. B., Kent, D. W., Mau, M., Mateus, O., & Milàn, J. (2020). Triassic lithostratigraphy of the Jameson Land Basin (central East Greenland), with emphasis on the new Fleming Fjord Group. Bulletin of the Geological Society of Denmark, 68, 95-132. https://doi.org/10.37570/bgsd-2020-68-05 Download date: 01. okt.. 2021 BULLETIN OF THE GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF DENMARK · VOL. 68 · 2020 Triassic lithostratigraphy of the Jameson Land Basin (central East Greenland), with emphasis on the new Fleming Fjord Group LARS B. CLEMMENSEN, DENNIS V. KENT, MALTE MAU, OCTÁVIO MATEUS & JESPER MILÀN Clemmensen, L.B., Kent, D.V., Mau, M., Mateus, O. & Milàn, J. 2020. Triassic lithostratigraphy of the Jameson Land basin (central East Greenland), with em- phasis on the new Fleming Fjord Group. Bulletin of the Geological Society of Denmark, vol. 68, pp. 95–132. ISSN 2245-7070. https://doi.org./10.37570/bgsd-2020-68-05 The lithostratigraphy of the Triassic deposits of the Jameson Land Basin in central East Greenland is revised. The new Scoresby Land Supergroup is now Geological Society of Denmark composed of the Wordie Creek, Pingo Dal, Gipsdalen and Fleming Fjord Groups.
    [Show full text]
  • Transformations of Lamarckism Vienna Series in Theoretical Biology Gerd B
    Transformations of Lamarckism Vienna Series in Theoretical Biology Gerd B. M ü ller, G ü nter P. Wagner, and Werner Callebaut, editors The Evolution of Cognition , edited by Cecilia Heyes and Ludwig Huber, 2000 Origination of Organismal Form: Beyond the Gene in Development and Evolutionary Biology , edited by Gerd B. M ü ller and Stuart A. Newman, 2003 Environment, Development, and Evolution: Toward a Synthesis , edited by Brian K. Hall, Roy D. Pearson, and Gerd B. M ü ller, 2004 Evolution of Communication Systems: A Comparative Approach , edited by D. Kimbrough Oller and Ulrike Griebel, 2004 Modularity: Understanding the Development and Evolution of Natural Complex Systems , edited by Werner Callebaut and Diego Rasskin-Gutman, 2005 Compositional Evolution: The Impact of Sex, Symbiosis, and Modularity on the Gradualist Framework of Evolution , by Richard A. Watson, 2006 Biological Emergences: Evolution by Natural Experiment , by Robert G. B. Reid, 2007 Modeling Biology: Structure, Behaviors, Evolution , edited by Manfred D. Laubichler and Gerd B. M ü ller, 2007 Evolution of Communicative Flexibility: Complexity, Creativity, and Adaptability in Human and Animal Communication , edited by Kimbrough D. Oller and Ulrike Griebel, 2008 Functions in Biological and Artifi cial Worlds: Comparative Philosophical Perspectives , edited by Ulrich Krohs and Peter Kroes, 2009 Cognitive Biology: Evolutionary and Developmental Perspectives on Mind, Brain, and Behavior , edited by Luca Tommasi, Mary A. Peterson, and Lynn Nadel, 2009 Innovation in Cultural Systems: Contributions from Evolutionary Anthropology , edited by Michael J. O ’ Brien and Stephen J. Shennan, 2010 The Major Transitions in Evolution Revisited , edited by Brett Calcott and Kim Sterelny, 2011 Transformations of Lamarckism: From Subtle Fluids to Molecular Biology , edited by Snait B.
    [Show full text]
  • The Origins of Dinosauria: Much Ado About Nothing
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by RERO DOC Digital Library [Palaeontology, Vol. 57, Part 3, 2014, pp. 469–478] FRONTIERS IN PALAEONTOLOGY THE ORIGINS OF DINOSAURIA: MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING by MAX C. LANGER Departamento de Biologia, FFCLRP, Universidade de S~ao Paulo, Av. Bandeirantes 3900,14040-901, Ribeir~ao Preto, SP Brazil; e-mail: [email protected] Typescript received 19 February 2014; accepted in revised form 7 March 2014 Abstract: Research this century has greatly improved our early members of the main dinosauromorph lineages and knowledge of the origin and early radiation of dinosaurs. requires a more meticulous assessment of characters and The unearthing of several new dinosaurs and close out- homologies than those recently conducted. Presently, the groups from Triassic rocks from various parts of the oldest uncontroversial dinosaur records come from Late world, coupled with improved phylogenetic analyses, has Triassic (Carnian) rocks of South America, southern Africa set a basic framework in terms of timing of events and and India, hinting at a south-western Pangaea origin of the macroevolutionary patterns. However, important parts of group. Besides, macroevolutionary approaches suggest that the early dinosauromorph evolutionary history are still the rise of dinosaurs was a more gradual process than pre- poorly understood, rendering uncertain the phylogenetic viously understood. Obviously, these tentative scenarios position of silesaurids as either non-dinosaur Dinosaurifor- need to be tested by new fossil finds, which should also mes or ornithischians, as well as that of various early help close the major gaps recognized in the fossil record of saurischians, such as Eoraptor lunensis and herrerasaurs, as Triassic dinosauromorphs.
    [Show full text]
  • Palaeontological Impact Assessment Phase 1: Desktop Study Proposed
    Palaeontological Impact Assessment Phase 1: Desktop Study Proposed Dinosaur Interpretation Center, Golden Gate Highlands National Park, Free State Dr. Jonah Nathaniel Choiniere Senior Researcher Evolutionary Studies Institute, University of the Witwatersrand Johannesburg [email protected] 011 717 6684 For South African National Parks (SANParks) Wednesday, 11 March 2015 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Phase I Palaeontological Impact Assessment concerns the South African National Park authority’s proposal to build a Dinosaur Interpretation Center at Golden Gate Highlands National Park, Free State. The proposed development will overlie sedimentary bedrock that is extremely likely to contain vertebrate fossils of scientific and cultural importance. It is strongly recommended that a trained palaeontologist be on hand during site work to monitor all excavations into the sedimentary bedrock. This palaeontologist should have a collection permit from the South African Heritage Resources Agency so that they can legally excavate any important material that is discovered while the site is developed. With this mitigation recommendation in place, it will be possible to simultaneously complete the proposed project and protect valuable heritage resources. BACKGROUND INFORMATION This Phase I Palaeontological Impact Assessment (PIA) is a part of an Environmental Impact Assessment being performed by EnviroWorks and commissioned by the developer, South African National Parks (SANParks). The contact person for EnviroWorks is: Adel Groenewald 072 460 3333
    [Show full text]
  • Phylogenetic Comparative Methods: a User's Guide for Paleontologists
    Phylogenetic Comparative Methods: A User’s Guide for Paleontologists Laura C. Soul - Department of Paleobiology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, USA David F. Wright - Division of Paleontology, American Museum of Natural History, Central Park West at 79th Street, New York, New York 10024, USA and Department of Paleobiology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, USA Abstract. Recent advances in statistical approaches called Phylogenetic Comparative Methods (PCMs) have provided paleontologists with a powerful set of analytical tools for investigating evolutionary tempo and mode in fossil lineages. However, attempts to integrate PCMs with fossil data often present workers with practical challenges or unfamiliar literature. In this paper, we present guides to the theory behind, and application of, PCMs with fossil taxa. Based on an empirical dataset of Paleozoic crinoids, we present example analyses to illustrate common applications of PCMs to fossil data, including investigating patterns of correlated trait evolution, and macroevolutionary models of morphological change. We emphasize the importance of accounting for sources of uncertainty, and discuss how to evaluate model fit and adequacy. Finally, we discuss several promising methods for modelling heterogenous evolutionary dynamics with fossil phylogenies. Integrating phylogeny-based approaches with the fossil record provides a rigorous, quantitative perspective to understanding key patterns in the history of life. 1. Introduction A fundamental prediction of biological evolution is that a species will most commonly share many characteristics with lineages from which it has recently diverged, and fewer characteristics with lineages from which it diverged further in the past. This principle, which results from descent with modification, is one of the most basic in biology (Darwin 1859).
    [Show full text]
  • Phylogenetic Definitions in the Pre-Phylocode Era; Implications for Naming Clades Under the Phylocode
    PaleoBios 27(1):1–6, April 30, 2007 © 2006 University of California Museum of Paleontology Phylogenetic definitions in the pre-PhyloCode era; implications for naming clades under the PhyloCode MiChAel P. TAylor Palaeobiology research Group, School of earth and environmental Sciences, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth Po1 3Ql, UK; [email protected] The last twenty years of work on phylogenetic nomenclature have given rise to many names and definitions that are now considered suboptimal. in formulating permanent definitions under the PhyloCode when it is implemented, it will be necessary to evaluate the corpus of existing names and make judgements about which to establish and which to discard. This is not straightforward, because early definitions are often inexplicit and ambiguous, generally do not meet the requirements of the PhyloCode, and in some cases may not be easily recognizable as phylogenetic definitions at all. recognition of synonyms is also complicated by the use of different kinds of specifiers (species, specimens, clades, genera, suprageneric rank-based names, and vernacular names) and by definitions whose content changes under different phylogenetic hypotheses. in light of these difficulties, five principles are suggested to guide the interpreta- tion of pre-PhyloCode clade-names and to inform the process of naming clades under the PhyloCode: (1) do not recognize “accidental” definitions; (2) malformed definitions should be interpreted according to the intention of the author when and where this is obvious; (3) apomorphy-based and other definitions must be recognized as well as node-based and stem-based definitions; (4) definitions using any kind of specifier taxon should be recognized; and (5) priority of synonyms and homonyms should guide but not prescribe.
    [Show full text]
  • The Origin and Early Evolution of Dinosaurs
    Biol. Rev. (2010), 85, pp. 55–110. 55 doi:10.1111/j.1469-185X.2009.00094.x The origin and early evolution of dinosaurs Max C. Langer1∗,MartinD.Ezcurra2, Jonathas S. Bittencourt1 and Fernando E. Novas2,3 1Departamento de Biologia, FFCLRP, Universidade de S˜ao Paulo; Av. Bandeirantes 3900, Ribeir˜ao Preto-SP, Brazil 2Laboratorio de Anatomia Comparada y Evoluci´on de los Vertebrados, Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales ‘‘Bernardino Rivadavia’’, Avda. Angel Gallardo 470, Cdad. de Buenos Aires, Argentina 3CONICET (Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cient´ıficas y T´ecnicas); Avda. Rivadavia 1917 - Cdad. de Buenos Aires, Argentina (Received 28 November 2008; revised 09 July 2009; accepted 14 July 2009) ABSTRACT The oldest unequivocal records of Dinosauria were unearthed from Late Triassic rocks (approximately 230 Ma) accumulated over extensional rift basins in southwestern Pangea. The better known of these are Herrerasaurus ischigualastensis, Pisanosaurus mertii, Eoraptor lunensis,andPanphagia protos from the Ischigualasto Formation, Argentina, and Staurikosaurus pricei and Saturnalia tupiniquim from the Santa Maria Formation, Brazil. No uncontroversial dinosaur body fossils are known from older strata, but the Middle Triassic origin of the lineage may be inferred from both the footprint record and its sister-group relation to Ladinian basal dinosauromorphs. These include the typical Marasuchus lilloensis, more basal forms such as Lagerpeton and Dromomeron, as well as silesaurids: a possibly monophyletic group composed of Mid-Late Triassic forms that may represent immediate sister taxa to dinosaurs. The first phylogenetic definition to fit the current understanding of Dinosauria as a node-based taxon solely composed of mutually exclusive Saurischia and Ornithischia was given as ‘‘all descendants of the most recent common ancestor of birds and Triceratops’’.
    [Show full text]