DOCSLIB.ORG

Taxic Revisions

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Taxic Revisions Cladistics 17, 79±103 (2001) doi:10.1006/clad.2000.0161, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by LiriasTaxic Revisions James S. Farris,* Arnold G. Kluge,² and Jan E. De Laet*,³ *MolekylaÈrsystematiska laboratoriet, Naturhistoriska riksmuseet, Box 50007 SE-104 05 Stockholm, Sweden; ²Division of Reptiles and Amphibians, Museum of Zoology, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1079; and ³Laboratorium voor Systematiek, Instituut voor Plantkunde en Microbiologie, K.U. Leuven, Kard. Mercierlaan 92, B-3001 Leuven, Belgium Accepted December 19, 2000 Parsimony analysis provides a straightforward way of employed for classification, but instead means that sys- assessing homology on a tree: a state shared by two tematic methods must be logically capable of phyloge- terminals comprises homologous similarity if optimiza- netic interpretation. Neither m3ta nor rm3ta satisfies tion attributes that state to all the stem species lying that requirement because of their contradictory assess- between those terminals. Three-taxon statements (3ts), ments of homology. ᭧ 2001 The Willi Hennig Society although seemingly ªexactº in that each either fits a tree or does not, do not provide a satisfactory assessment of homology, because that assessment can be internally contradictory and because 3ts systematically exclude homologous resemblance in reversed states. Modified 3ts OVERVIEW analysis (m3ta), a method in which both plesiomorphic and apomorphic states of ªpaired homologueº (PH) characters (those other than presence/absence data) are Carine and Scotland (1999) followed Patterson's regarded as ªinformativeº (able to distinguish groups), (1982) taxic approach to homology, and on that basis can (obviously) group by symplesiomorphy and so form they proposed a new method, modi®ed three-taxon paraphyletic groups unless data are clocklike enough. statement analysis (m3ta). The modi®cation did not Patterson's pattern analysis (ppa) has the same short- affect the treatment of presence/absence data, called coming, to which it adds the drawback that only charac- ªcomplement relationº (CR), but only that of other ters fitting the tree perfectly are used, a restriction that characters, called ªpaired homologueº (PH).1 Whereas can easily lead to discarding most of the structure in Nelson and Platnick's (1991) original 3ta (N/P 3ta) the data. Revised m3ta (rm3ta), a method in which treated only putatively apomorphic similarities as plesiomorphic states are not taken as informative, can grounds for grouping, m3ta treated both apomorphic also form paraphyletic groups, because it cannot apply reversals as apomorphies. The idea that knowledge of 1ªPairedº because it originally referred to two-state characters. phylogeny has been derived from classifications does Scotland (2000a) now calls multistate characters ªshared homo- not imply that nonevolutionary methods should be logues,º apparently in order to rhyme. 0748-3007/01 $35.00 79 Copyright ᭧ 2001 by The Willi Hennig Society All rights of reproduction in any form reserved 80 Farris, Kluge, and De Laet and plesiomorphic states of PH characters as informa- calling attention to relevant aspects of Carine and Scot- tive,2 that is, able to support groups. But Kluge and land's (1999) earlier treatment. Farris (1999) pointed out that this treatment of PH characters makes m3taÐlike phenetic clusteringÐ sensitive to autapomorphy, so that unless data are clocklike enough, m3ta can group by symplesiomor- ROOTS phy and so form paraphyletic groups. Scotland and Carine (2000) now object to that obser- vation. At ®rst they claim to refute itÐby arguing The crucial premise of Carine and Scotland's (1999, that autapomorphy does not affect their method for p. 121) position was what may be called their taxic analyzing CR characters! Later they stress that m3ta assumption. Note that the bracketed insertion ª[to the gets the right tree for a real PH (nucleotide) matrix for study of homology]º is theirs; Patterson's original com- apes. But then those data happen to be clocklike, and ment had ª(the one I am advocating)º in that place other real cases show the autapomorphy effect quite Patterson (1982: 34) distinguished two approaches to the study dramatically. Scotland and Carine seem to realize this, of homology which he called taxic and transformational homol- for while they never acknowledge such cases, they do ogy, terms derived from the taxic and transformational ap- ®nally try to address the problem, by discarding the proaches to evolutionary theory described by Eldredge (1979). taxic idea that plesiomorphic PH states must be treated According to Patterson (1982: 34), ªThe taxic approach [to the as informative. When they change their clustering study of homology] is concerned with monophyly of groups. The transformational approach is concerned with change, method accordingly, the revised version (rm3ta) is like which need not imply grouping.º Thus, for four taxa (ABCD) the old N/P 3ta. in which taxa A and B share character state X and taxa C Yet despite abandoning their old taxic principles, and D share character state XЈ, two groups (AB) and (CD) are Scotland and Carine (2000) still wish to connect their hypothesized from a taxic perspective (Fig. 1). views to Patterson's (1982) taxic homology, and for The taxic tree would then be ((A B) (C D)), as they that purpose they maintain that their method can test showed in their Fig. 1D. This effectively assumed that homology, whereas parsimony cannot. But their criti- neither state could have arisen from the other. If state cism of parsimony consists only of not mentioning X' were a modi®ed (or substituted) form of X, for exam- how parsimony is actually used in evaluating homol- ple, the tree could obviously be (A B (C D)) instead. ogy, while their own approach gives internally contra- Readers accustomed to Eldredge's (1979) usage of dictory assessments and systematically excludes ho- ªtaxicº should keep in mind that Patterson (1982) mologous similarities in reversed states. The latter changed the meaning of the term substantially (cf. dif®culty arises because their revised clustering Farris, 2000a). Eldredge (1979, p. 17) used taxic for method suffers from the reappearance of a weakness evolutionary theories that include transformational found in N/P 3ta, that reversals are not applied as theories: synapomorphies. Their attempt to relate their ap- proach to Patterson's views, moreover, rests only on A complete evolutionary theory requires the presence of two ignoring the differences between their method and Pat- distinct componentsÐ(a) a theory of mechanics to explain ge- terson's own. netic, morphologic, and behavioral change, and (b) a theory pertaining to the origin of species. Many of the classic areas These issues are straightforward in themselves, but of investigation, especially in paleontology and genetics, em- exposing them turns out to be another matter. While phasize the aspect of evolutionary mechanics (the ªtransforma- Scotland and Carine (2000) have revised both their tionalº approach) to the point of near exclusion of consideration method and their taxic principles they go to some of the origin of taxa (the ªtaxicº approach). Integration of lengths to avoid stating that fact directly. Because of the two approaches is best effected by considering the issues of the transformational approach as a subset of those of the that complication, we will begin our discussion by taxic approach. 2This is not the usual meaning of ªinformativeº; we have employed In his taxic approach to homology, in contrast, Pat- it here only to facilitate discussion of Scotland and Carine's com- terson (1982, p. 67) admitted no connection with evolu- ments. tionary changeÐor with evolution: Copyright ᭧ 2001 by The Willi Hennig Society All rights of reproduction in any form reserved Taxic Revisions 81 The role of homology in phylogenetic reconstruction is limited to the production of cladograms, or classi®cations. These activi- ties need have no evolutionary connotations. If phylogeny has to be about evolution, homology has nothing to contribute to it. Unfortunately for the curious, Patterson never ex- plained what phylogeny would be about, if not evolu- tion. Whatever that might be, however, the taxic as- sumption ®ts a nonevolutionary view very well, for as Kluge and Farris (1999, p. 207) pointed out: The taxic choice of ((A B) (C D)) thus rests on a ruling out a priori the possibility that either state has replaced (changed into, been substituted for) the other. If applied to nucleotide data, then, the taxic assumption would have the paradoxical implica- tion that substitution could not have occurred at all! Carine and Scotland (1999, p. 122f) applied the taxic assumption only to PH characters. For CR characters they retained N/P 3ta,3 explaining Scotland (1999b) [sic] has shown that for three-taxon statement analysis the two relations [i.e., complement relation and paired homologue] need to be dealt with differently. This is because in t.t.s. analysis it is only the ones (1's) in a matrix that can provide evidence of group membership. For complement rela- tion characters this is unproblematic because presence coded one (1) is the only part of the relation which provides evidence of grouping. However, for paired homologue data both homo- logues [states] constitute hypotheses of groups. By designating one of the homologues zero (0), that homologue is rendered uninformative because an all zero ªfunctional outgroupº is an essential part of implementing t.t.s. To overcome this problem Scotland (1999b) [sic] proposed a modi®cation of t.t.s. analysis (hereinafter called modi®ed t.t.s.) which treats all homologues [states] as being potentially informative. 3Except that, unlike Nelson and Platnick (1991), Carine and Scot- land (1999) used Nelson and Ladiges' (1992) fractional weighting, discussed further below, but this has no connection with their views on outgroups. FIG. 1. Matrix from Kluge (1994, his Table 2), presented ®rst as 0/1 characters (the original version) and then as nucleotide codes for selected sites.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • An Introduction to Phylogenetic Analysis
    This article reprinted from: Kosinski, R.J. 2006. An introduction to phylogenetic analysis. Pages 57-106, in Tested Studies for Laboratory Teaching, Volume 27 (M.A. O'Donnell, Editor). Proceedings of the 27th Workshop/Conference of the Association for Biology Laboratory Education (ABLE), 383 pages. Compilation copyright © 2006 by the Association for Biology Laboratory Education (ABLE) ISBN 1-890444-09-X All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the copyright owner. Use solely at one’s own institution with no intent for profit is excluded from the preceding copyright restriction, unless otherwise noted on the copyright notice of the individual chapter in this volume. Proper credit to this publication must be included in your laboratory outline for each use; a sample citation is given above. Upon obtaining permission or with the “sole use at one’s own institution” exclusion, ABLE strongly encourages individuals to use the exercises in this proceedings volume in their teaching program. Although the laboratory exercises in this proceedings volume have been tested and due consideration has been given to safety, individuals performing these exercises must assume all responsibilities for risk. The Association for Biology Laboratory Education (ABLE) disclaims any liability with regards to safety in connection with the use of the exercises in this volume. The focus of ABLE is to improve the undergraduate biology laboratory experience by promoting the development and dissemination of interesting, innovative, and reliable laboratory exercises.
    [Show full text]
  • A Phylogenomic Analysis of Turtles ⇑ Nicholas G
    Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 83 (2015) 250–257 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ympev A phylogenomic analysis of turtles ⇑ Nicholas G. Crawford a,b,1, James F. Parham c, ,1, Anna B. Sellas a, Brant C. Faircloth d, Travis C. Glenn e, Theodore J. Papenfuss f, James B. Henderson a, Madison H. Hansen a,g, W. Brian Simison a a Center for Comparative Genomics, California Academy of Sciences, 55 Music Concourse Drive, San Francisco, CA 94118, USA b Department of Genetics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA c John D. Cooper Archaeological and Paleontological Center, Department of Geological Sciences, California State University, Fullerton, CA 92834, USA d Department of Biological Sciences, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803, USA e Department of Environmental Health Science, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA f Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA g Mathematical and Computational Biology Department, Harvey Mudd College, 301 Platt Boulevard, Claremont, CA 9171, USA article info abstract Article history: Molecular analyses of turtle relationships have overturned prevailing morphological hypotheses and Received 11 July 2014 prompted the development of a new taxonomy. Here we provide the first genome-scale analysis of turtle Revised 16 October 2014 phylogeny. We sequenced 2381 ultraconserved element (UCE) loci representing a total of 1,718,154 bp of Accepted 28 October 2014 aligned sequence. Our sampling includes 32 turtle taxa representing all 14 recognized turtle families and Available online 4 November 2014 an additional six outgroups. Maximum likelihood, Bayesian, and species tree methods produce a single resolved phylogeny.
    [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]
  • Phylogeny Codon Models • Last Lecture: Poor Man’S Way of Calculating Dn/Ds (Ka/Ks) • Tabulate Synonymous/Non-Synonymous Substitutions • Normalize by the Possibilities
    Phylogeny Codon models • Last lecture: poor man’s way of calculating dN/dS (Ka/Ks) • Tabulate synonymous/non-synonymous substitutions • Normalize by the possibilities • Transform to genetic distance KJC or Kk2p • In reality we use codon model • Amino acid substitution rates meet nucleotide models • Codon(nucleotide triplet) Codon model parameterization Stop codons are not allowed, reducing the matrix from 64x64 to 61x61 The entire codon matrix can be parameterized using: κ kappa, the transition/transversionratio ω omega, the dN/dS ratio – optimizing this parameter gives the an estimate of selection force πj the equilibrium codon frequency of codon j (Goldman and Yang. MBE 1994) Empirical codon substitution matrix Observations: Instantaneous rates of double nucleotide changes seem to be non-zero There should be a mechanism for mutating 2 adjacent nucleotides at once! (Kosiol and Goldman) • • Phylogeny • • Last lecture: Inferring distance from Phylogenetic trees given an alignment How to infer trees and distance distance How do we infer trees given an alignment • • Branch length Topology d 6-p E 6'B o F P Edo 3 vvi"oH!.- !fi*+nYolF r66HiH- .) Od-:oXP m a^--'*A ]9; E F: i ts X o Q I E itl Fl xo_-+,<Po r! UoaQrj*l.AP-^PA NJ o - +p-5 H .lXei:i'tH 'i,x+<ox;+x"'o 4 + = '" I = 9o FF^' ^X i! .poxHo dF*x€;. lqEgrE x< f <QrDGYa u5l =.ID * c 3 < 6+6_ y+ltl+5<->-^Hry ni F.O+O* E 3E E-f e= FaFO;o E rH y hl o < H ! E Y P /-)^\-B 91 X-6p-a' 6J.
    [Show full text]
  • A Phylogenetic Analysis of the Basal Ornithischia (Reptilia, Dinosauria)
    A PHYLOGENETIC ANALYSIS OF THE BASAL ORNITHISCHIA (REPTILIA, DINOSAURIA) Marc Richard Spencer A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE December 2007 Committee: Margaret M. Yacobucci, Advisor Don C. Steinker Daniel M. Pavuk © 2007 Marc Richard Spencer All Rights Reserved iii ABSTRACT Margaret M. Yacobucci, Advisor The placement of Lesothosaurus diagnosticus and the Heterodontosauridae within the Ornithischia has been problematic. Historically, Lesothosaurus has been regarded as a basal ornithischian dinosaur, the sister taxon to the Genasauria. Recent phylogenetic analyses, however, have placed Lesothosaurus as a more derived ornithischian within the Genasauria. The Fabrosauridae, of which Lesothosaurus was considered a member, has never been phylogenetically corroborated and has been considered a paraphyletic assemblage. Prior to recent phylogenetic analyses, the problematic Heterodontosauridae was placed within the Ornithopoda as the sister taxon to the Euornithopoda. The heterodontosaurids have also been considered as the basal member of the Cerapoda (Ornithopoda + Marginocephalia), the sister taxon to the Marginocephalia, and as the sister taxon to the Genasauria. To reevaluate the placement of these taxa, along with other basal ornithischians and more derived subclades, a phylogenetic analysis of 19 taxonomic units, including two outgroup taxa, was performed. Analysis of 97 characters and their associated character states culled, modified, and/or rescored from published literature based on published descriptions, produced four most parsimonious trees. Consistency and retention indices were calculated and a bootstrap analysis was performed to determine the relative support for the resultant phylogeny. The Ornithischia was recovered with Pisanosaurus as its basalmost member.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Integrative Biology 200 "PRINCIPLES OF
    Integrative Biology 200 "PRINCIPLES OF PHYLOGENETICS" Spring 2018 University of California, Berkeley B.D. Mishler March 14, 2018. Classification II: Phylogenetic taxonomy including incorporation of fossils; PhyloCode I. Phylogenetic Taxonomy - the argument for rank-free classification A number of recent calls have been made for the reformation of the Linnaean hierarchy (e.g., De Queiroz & Gauthier, 1992). These authors have emphasized that the existing system is based in a non-evolutionary world-view; the roots of the Linnaean hierarchy are in a specially- created world-view. Perhaps the idea of fixed, comparable ranks made some sense under that view, but under an evolutionary world view they don't make sense. There are several problems with the current nomenclatorial system: 1. The current system, with its single type for a name, cannot be used to precisely name a clade. E.g., you may name a family based on a certain type specimen, and even if you were clear about what node you meant to name in your original publication, the exact phylogenetic application of your name would not be clear subsequently, after new clades are added. 2. There are not nearly enough ranks to name the thousands of levels of monophyletic groups in the tree of life. Therefore people are increasingly using informal rank-free names for higher- level nodes, but without any clear, formal specification of what clade is meant. 3. Most aspects of the current code, including priority, revolve around the ranks, which leads to instability of usage. For example, when a change in relationships is discovered, several names often need to be changed to adjust, including those of groups whose circumscription has not changed.
    [Show full text]
  • Phylum Arthropoda
    Phylum Arthropoda General Characteristics of phylum shared by members of all subphyla: -chitinous, hardened exoskeleton that must be shed to grow -obvious segmentation (metamerism) -paired, jointed appendages on many segments Subphylum: Trilobita body plan: head, thorax, pygidium compound eyes antennae mandibles for feeding? branched (biramous) lappendages respiration by gills? able to roll up like pill bugs once most common arthropod, now completely extinct Subphylum: Myriopoda (centipedes, millipedes) body plan: head, long trunk lack compound eyes single pair of antennae mandibles for feeding Major Groups : unbranched legs on most segments Chilopoda (centipedes) respiration by tracheae Diplopoda (millipedes) Subphylum Chelicerata: (spiders, horshoe crab, scorpions, mites, ticks) body plan: cephalothorax, abdomen most lack compound eyes no antennae Major Classes : chelicerae for feeding (no mandibles) Merostomata (horshoe crabs) four pairs of unbranched legs Arachnida (spiders, scorpions, mites & ticks) respiration by gills, book lungs, book gills or tracheae Pycnogonida (sea spiders) Subphylum Crustacea: (crabs, shrimp, crayfish, barnacles, pill bugs, water fleas) body plan: cephalothorax, abdomen, tail compound eyes two pairs of antennae Major Classes : mandibles for feeding Malacostraca (shrimp, crab, pill bugs, amphipods) branched (biramous) appendages Branchiopoda (water fleas, brine shrimp, fairy shrimp) respiration by gills Maxillipoda (copepods, seed shrimp, barnacles) only subphylum that is mostly aquatic Subphylum: Hexapoda (beetles, flies, bugs, crickets, mayflies, dragonflies, moths, wasps, etc.) body plan: head, thorax, abdomen compound eyes single pair of antennae mandibles for feeding three pairs of unbranched legs Major Groups : two pairs of wings Apterygota (wingless insects; springtails, silverfish) respiration by tracheae Pterygota (flying insects; dragonflies, butterflies, etc) includes only invertebrates that can fly.
    [Show full text]
  • Arthropods of Elm Fork Preserve
    Arthropods of Elm Fork Preserve Arthropods are characterized by having jointed limbs and exoskeletons. They include a diverse assortment of creatures: Insects, spiders, crustaceans (crayfish, crabs, pill bugs), centipedes and millipedes among others. Column Headings Scientific Name: The phenomenal diversity of arthropods, creates numerous difficulties in the determination of species. Positive identification is often achieved only by specialists using obscure monographs to ‘key out’ a species by examining microscopic differences in anatomy. For our purposes in this survey of the fauna, classification at a lower level of resolution still yields valuable information. For instance, knowing that ant lions belong to the Family, Myrmeleontidae, allows us to quickly look them up on the Internet and be confident we are not being fooled by a common name that may also apply to some other, unrelated something. With the Family name firmly in hand, we may explore the natural history of ant lions without needing to know exactly which species we are viewing. In some instances identification is only readily available at an even higher ranking such as Class. Millipedes are in the Class Diplopoda. There are many Orders (O) of millipedes and they are not easily differentiated so this entry is best left at the rank of Class. A great deal of taxonomic reorganization has been occurring lately with advances in DNA analysis pointing out underlying connections and differences that were previously unrealized. For this reason, all other rankings aside from Family, Genus and Species have been omitted from the interior of the tables since many of these ranks are in a state of flux.
    [Show full text]
  • Zborník Príspevkov Z Vedeckého Kongresu „Zoológia 2016“
    Slovenská zoologická spoločnosť pri SAV a Univerzita Konštantína Filozofa v Nitre Zborník príspevkov z vedeckého kongresu „Zoológia 2016“ Zuzana Krumpálová, Martina Zigová & Filip Tulis (eds) Nitra 2016 Editori Zuzana Krumpálová, Martina Zigová & Filip Tulis Garanti podujatia doc. Mgr. et Mgr. Josef Bryja, Ph.D. doc. PaedDr. Stanislav David, PhD. RNDr. Anton Krištín, DrSc. Vedecký výbor (recenzenti) Organizačný výbor RNDr. Michal Ambros, PhD. doc. Mgr. Ivan Baláž, PhD. (predseda) doc. Mgr. Ivan Baláž, PhD. RNDr. Michal Ambros, PhD. doc. Mgr. Peter Fenďa, PhD. RNDr. Peter Bačkor, PhD. doc. Vladimír Kubovčík, PhD. Mgr. Henrich Grežo, PhD. doc. RNDr. Zuzana Krumpálová, PhD. doc. Ing. Vladimír Kubovčík, PhD. Ing. Peter Lešo, PhD. Mgr. Peter Manko, PhD. Mgr. Peter Manko, PhD. Mgr. Ladislav Pekárik, PhD. RNDr. Roman Slobodník, PhD. RNDr. Peter Petluš, PhD. doc. RNDr. Michal Stanko, DrSc. Ing. Viera Petlušová, PhD. doc. Ing. Peter Urban, PhD. RNDr. Roman Slobodník, PhD. Mgr. Michal Ševčík Mgr. Filip Tulis, PhD. Mgr. Martina Zigová Mgr. Martin Zemko Publikované príspevky boli recenzované. Za odbornú úroveň príspevkov zodpovedajú autori a recenzenti. Rukopis neprešiel jazykovou úpravou. Vydavateľ: Univerzita Konštantína Filozofa v Nitre Edícia: Prírodovedec č. 645 Formát: B5 Rok vydania: 2016 Miesto vydania: Nitra Počet strán: 250 Tlač: Vydavateľstvo SPU v Nitre Náklad: 150 kusov © Univerzita Konštantína Filozofa v Nitre ISBN 978-80-558-1102-4 Všetky práva vyhradené. Žiadna časť textu ani ilustrácie nemôžu byť použité na ďalšie šírenie akoukoľvek formou bez predchádzajúceho súhlasu autora alebo vydavateľa. Vedecké príspevky sú zoradené podľa priezviska autora príspevku v abecednom poradí. „Zoológia 2016“ 24. – 26. november 2016, Univerzita Konštantína Filozofa v Nitre Program kongresu „Zoológia 2016“ 24.
    [Show full text]
  • Math/C SC 5610 Computational Biology Lecture 12: Phylogenetics
    Math/C SC 5610 Computational Biology Lecture 12: Phylogenetics Stephen Billups University of Colorado at Denver Math/C SC 5610Computational Biology – p.1/25 Announcements Project Guidelines and Ideas are posted. (proposal due March 8) CCB Seminar, Friday (Mar. 4) Speaker: Jack Horner, SAIC Title: Phylogenetic Methods for Characterizing the Signature of Stage I Ovarian Cancer in Serum Protein Mas Time: 11-12 (Followed by lunch) Place: Media Center, AU008 Math/C SC 5610Computational Biology – p.2/25 Outline Distance based methods for phylogenetics UPGMA WPGMA Neighbor-Joining Character based methods Maximum Likelihood Maximum Parsimony Math/C SC 5610Computational Biology – p.3/25 Review: Distance Based Clustering Methods Main Idea: Requires a distance matrix D, (defining distances between each pair of elements). Repeatedly group together closest elements. Different algorithms differ by how they treat distances between groups. UPGMA (unweighted pair group method with arithmetic mean). WPGMA (weighted pair group method with arithmetic mean). Math/C SC 5610Computational Biology – p.4/25 UPGMA 1. Initialize C to the n singleton clusters f1g; : : : ; fng. 2. Initialize dist(c; d) on C by defining dist(fig; fjg) = D(i; j): 3. Repeat n ¡ 1 times: (a) determine pair c; d of clusters in C such that dist(c; d) is minimal; define dmin = dist(c; d). (b) define new cluster e = c S d; update C = C ¡ fc; dg Sfeg. (c) define a node with label e and daughters c; d, where e has distance dmin=2 to its leaves. (d) define for all f 2 C with f 6= e, dist(c; f) + dist(d; f) dist(e; f) = dist(f; e) = : (avg.
    [Show full text]
  • ARTHROPODA Subphylum Hexapoda Protura, Springtails, Diplura, and Insects
    NINE Phylum ARTHROPODA SUBPHYLUM HEXAPODA Protura, springtails, Diplura, and insects ROD P. MACFARLANE, PETER A. MADDISON, IAN G. ANDREW, JOCELYN A. BERRY, PETER M. JOHNS, ROBERT J. B. HOARE, MARIE-CLAUDE LARIVIÈRE, PENELOPE GREENSLADE, ROSA C. HENDERSON, COURTenaY N. SMITHERS, RicarDO L. PALMA, JOHN B. WARD, ROBERT L. C. PILGRIM, DaVID R. TOWNS, IAN McLELLAN, DAVID A. J. TEULON, TERRY R. HITCHINGS, VICTOR F. EASTOP, NICHOLAS A. MARTIN, MURRAY J. FLETCHER, MARLON A. W. STUFKENS, PAMELA J. DALE, Daniel BURCKHARDT, THOMAS R. BUCKLEY, STEVEN A. TREWICK defining feature of the Hexapoda, as the name suggests, is six legs. Also, the body comprises a head, thorax, and abdomen. The number A of abdominal segments varies, however; there are only six in the Collembola (springtails), 9–12 in the Protura, and 10 in the Diplura, whereas in all other hexapods there are strictly 11. Insects are now regarded as comprising only those hexapods with 11 abdominal segments. Whereas crustaceans are the dominant group of arthropods in the sea, hexapods prevail on land, in numbers and biomass. Altogether, the Hexapoda constitutes the most diverse group of animals – the estimated number of described species worldwide is just over 900,000, with the beetles (order Coleoptera) comprising more than a third of these. Today, the Hexapoda is considered to contain four classes – the Insecta, and the Protura, Collembola, and Diplura. The latter three classes were formerly allied with the insect orders Archaeognatha (jumping bristletails) and Thysanura (silverfish) as the insect subclass Apterygota (‘wingless’). The Apterygota is now regarded as an artificial assemblage (Bitsch & Bitsch 2000).
    [Show full text]
  • Insect Classification Standards 2020
    RECOMMENDED INSECT CLASSIFICATION FOR UGA ENTOMOLOGY CLASSES (2020) In an effort to standardize the hexapod classification systems being taught to our students by our faculty in multiple courses across three UGA campuses, I recommend that the Entomology Department adopts the basic system presented in the following textbook: Triplehorn, C.A. and N.F. Johnson. 2005. Borror and DeLong’s Introduction to the Study of Insects. 7th ed. Thomson Brooks/Cole, Belmont CA, 864 pp. This book was chosen for a variety of reasons. It is widely used in the U.S. as the textbook for Insect Taxonomy classes, including our class at UGA. It focuses on North American taxa. The authors were cautious, presenting changes only after they have been widely accepted by the taxonomic community. Below is an annotated summary of the T&J (2005) classification. Some of the more familiar taxa above the ordinal level are given in caps. Some of the more important and familiar suborders and families are indented and listed beneath each order. Note that this is neither an exhaustive nor representative list of suborders and families. It was provided simply to clarify which taxa are impacted by some of more important classification changes. Please consult T&J (2005) for information about taxa that are not listed below. Unfortunately, T&J (2005) is now badly outdated with respect to some significant classification changes. Therefore, in the classification standard provided below, some well corroborated and broadly accepted updates have been made to their classification scheme. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions about this classification.
    [Show full text]