DOCSLIB.ORG

The General Lineage Concept of Species, Species Chteria, and the Process of Speciation a Conceptual Unification and Terminological Recommendations

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The General Lineage Concept of Species, Species Chteria, and the Process of Speciation a Conceptual Unification and Terminological Recommendations The General Lineage Concept of Species, Species Chteria, and the Process of Speciation A Conceptual Unification and Terminological Recommendations Kevin de Queiroz Speciation, the process through which new species come by contemporary biologists. Next, I present evidence that into being, is one of the central topics of evolutionary all modem species definitions describe variants of a single biology. It links the great fields of micro- and macroevo- general concept of species. I then discuss how the time- lutionary biology and intersects a wide variety of related extended nature of species and the diversity of events that biological disciplines, including behavioral biology, ecol- occur during the process of speciation provide the basis ogy, genetics, morphology, paleontology, physiology, for the diversity of alternative species definitions. Based reproductive biology, and systematics. For this reason, a on a distinction between species concepts and species persistent controversy regarding the definition of the term criteria, I propose a revised and conceptually unified ter- species may seem disconcerting. The continual proposal minology for the ideas described by contemporary spe- of new species definitions•commonly characterized as cies definitions, and I discuss the significance and limi- alternative species concepts•seems to suggest that there tations of different classes of species definitions. Finally, is no general agreement about what species are, and if I examine an interpretation of species criteria that places this is the case, then the possibility of understanding how alternative criteria in direct conflict and thus contains the species come into being also seems unlikely. At the very key to resolving the species problem. least, there seems to be considerable potential for mis- interpretation and confusion about what different biolo- gists mean when they talk about species and speciation. Alternative Species Definitions But the situation is not really as troublesome as it may appear. Although real differences underlie alternative spe- Over the last half century, biologists have established a cies definitions, there is really less disagreement about minor industry devoted to the production of new defini- species concepts than the existence of so many alternative tions for the term species. In this section I present a sum- definitions seems to suggest. Each species definition has mary of those definitions, using a terminology proposed a different emphasis, but the various phenomena that they by the authors of those definitions and others comment- emphasize are all aspects or properties of a single kind of ing on their work (see also Haffer, 1986; Häuser, 1987; entity. In other words, almost all modem biologists have Panchen, 1992; King, 1993; Ridley, 1993; Smith, 1994; the same general concept of species. Differences among Vrba, 1995; Hull, 1996; Shaw, this volume; Harrison, this the many versions of this general concept are at least partly volume). My purpose is not to catalog modern species attributable to the complex and temporally extended nature definitions exhaustively but rather to represent their di- of species and the process or processes through which they versity, and my use of an existing terminology is not in- come into existence. In many respects, considering spe- tended to endorse that terminology-indeed, I propose ciation as a temporally extended process is the key to under- what I believe to be a more useful one later in this chap- standing the diversity of species definitions. ter•but rather to reflect current views on the historical In this chapter, I provide a general theoretical context and conceptual relationships among altemative species that accounts for both the unity and the diversity of ideas definitions. References in the headings are for the terms represented by alternative species definitions. First, I themselves (as opposed to their definitions); emphasis has review the major categories of species definitions adopted been removed from quoted passages. 57 58 SPECIES CONCEPTS Biological Species Concept (.e.g., Mayr, 1942,1963). shared by conspecific organisms, rather than the repro- This term has been applied to definitions that emphasize ductive isolation between heterospecific organisms. For interbreeding, specifically, the idea that species are popu- example, "members of a species share a common specific lations of interbreeding organisms. Although such defi- mate recognition system" (Paterson 1978:369); "a spe- nitions have ancient roots (e.g., the writings of Buffon, cies [is] that most inclusive population of individual bi- discussed by Mayr, 1982) and were more or less clearly parental organisms which share a common fertilization articulated by authors at the beginning of the twentieth system" (Paterson 1985:25). century (e.g., Poulton, 1903; Jordan, 1905; see Mayr, 1955), they are most commonly associated with the New Evolutionary Species Concept (e.g., Wiley, 1978, Systematics (e.g., Huxley, 1940) of the Evolutionary 1981). This term has been u sed for definitions empha- Synthesis (reviewed by Mayr and Provine, 1980). Some sizing the extension of species through time and attempt- examples are as follows: "groups within which all sub- ing to accommodate both the observation that some popu- divisions interbreed sufficiently freely to form inter- lations appear to maintain their distinctness despite grading populations wherever they come in contact, but interbreeding with other populations and the idea that between which there is so little interbreeding that such asexual organisms form species. "An evolutionary species populations are not found" (Wright, 1940; 162); "the is a lineage (an ancestral-descendant sequence of popu- largest and most inclusive Mendelian population ... [a] lations) evolving separately from others and with its Mendelian population is a reproductive community of own unitary evolutionary role and tendencies" (Simpson, sexual and cross-fertilizing individuals which share in a 1961:153; see also Simpson, 1951). "A species is a single common gene pool" (Dobzhansky, 1950:405); "groups lineage of ancestral descendant populations of organisms of actually or potentially interbreeding natural popula- which maintains its identity from other such lineages and tions, which are reproductively isolated from other such which has its own evolutionary tendencies and historical groups" (Mayr, 1942:120; see also Mayr, 1963, 1970). fate" (Wiley, 1978:18; see also Wiley, 1981). Other names given to this class of definitions are "inter- breeding-population concept" (Mayr, 1942), "genetical concept of species" (Simpson, 1951), "reproductive spe- Ecological Species Concept (Van Valen, 1976). This cies concept" (Van Valen, 1976), and "species concepts term was proposed by Van Valen (1976) for his modi- based on interbreeding" (de Queiroz and Donoghue, fication of Simpson's (1961) definition; it emphasizes the importance of ecologically based natural selection 1988). Some authors (e.g., Paterson, 1981, 1985, 1986; Lambert and Paterson, 1982; Masters et al., 1987) see an in maintaining species: "A species is a lineage (or a important distinction between two subcategories of "bio- closely related set of lineages) which occupies an adap- tive zone minimally different from that of any other logical" or "genetical" species concepts (see below); others (e.g., Mayr, 1988) do not. lineage in its range and which evolves separately from all lineages outside its range" (Van Valen, 1976:233; see also Andersson, 1990). Isolation [Species] Concept (e.g., Paterson, 1985). This term has been applied, by advocates of the alterna- tive "recognition concept" (see below), to the views on Cohesion Species Concepi (Templeton, 1989). This species articulated by Dobzhansky and Mayr, which em- term was proposed by Templeton (1989) for his own defi- phasize reproductive isolation between organisms of dif- nition, which synthesizes components of the evolution- ferent species. Mayr's (1942, 1963, 1970) definition, ary, ecological, isolation, and recognition definitions. It quoted above, falls into this category, as does the follow- emphasizes the mechanisms that maintain evolutionary ing definition of Dobzhansky: "Species are . systems lineages by promoting genetic relatedness and determin- of populations; the gene exchange between these systems ing the boundaries of populations with respect to mico- is limited or prevented in nature by a reproductive iso- revolutionary processes such as gene flow, genetic drift, lating mechanism or perhaps by a combination of sev- and natural selection. "The cohesion concept [of] species eral such mechanisms" (Dobzhansky, 1970:357). is the most inclusive population of individual s having the potential for phenotypic cohesion through intrinsic cohe- Recognition [Species] Conceptie.g., Paterson, 1985). sion mechanisms" (Templeton, 1989:12). See Templeton This term has been applied to the views on species (1989, table 2) for a summary of proposed cohesion articulated by Paterson (e.g., 1980, 1981, 1985, 1986, mechanisms. 1993a; see also Lambert and Paterson, 1982,1984; Mas- ters et al., 1987; Lambert and Spencer, 1995) as an alter- PhylogeneticSpecies Conceptie.g., Cracraft, 1983). native to the "isolation concept." Species definitions This term has been used for at least three distinct classes associated with the "recognition concept" emphasize the of species definitions associated with the taxonomic ide- unification of species rather than their separation from ology known
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Species Concepts Should Not Conflict with Evolutionary History, but Often Do
    ARTICLE IN PRESS Stud. Hist. Phil. Biol. & Biomed. Sci. xxx (2008) xxx–xxx Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Stud. Hist. Phil. Biol. & Biomed. Sci. journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/shpsc Species concepts should not conflict with evolutionary history, but often do Joel D. Velasco Department of Philosophy, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 5185 White Hall, 600 North Park St., Madison, WI 53719, USA Department of Philosophy, Building 90, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA article info abstract Keywords: Many phylogenetic systematists have criticized the Biological Species Concept (BSC) because it distorts Biological Species Concept evolutionary history. While defences against this particular criticism have been attempted, I argue that Phylogenetic Species Concept these responses are unsuccessful. In addition, I argue that the source of this problem leads to previously Phylogenetic Trees unappreciated, and deeper, fatal objections. These objections to the BSC also straightforwardly apply to Taxonomy other species concepts that are not defined by genealogical history. What is missing from many previous discussions is the fact that the Tree of Life, which represents phylogenetic history, is independent of our choice of species concept. Some species concepts are consistent with species having unique positions on the Tree while others, including the BSC, are not. Since representing history is of primary importance in evolutionary biology, these problems lead to the conclusion that the BSC, along with many other species concepts, are unacceptable. If species are to be taxa used in phylogenetic inferences, we need a history- based species concept. Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. When citing this paper, please use the full journal title Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 1.
    [Show full text]
  • The Taxonomy of Primates in the Laboratory Context
    P0800261_01 7/14/05 8:00 AM Page 3 C HAPTER 1 The Taxonomy of Primates T HE T in the Laboratory Context AXONOMY OF P Colin Groves RIMATES School of Archaeology and Anthropology, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia 3 What are species? D Taxonomy: EFINITION OF THE The biological Organizing nature species concept Taxonomy means classifying organisms. It is nowadays commonly used as a synonym for systematics, though Disagreement as to what precisely constitutes a species P strictly speaking systematics is a much broader sphere is to be expected, given that the concept serves so many RIMATE of interest – interrelationships, and biodiversity. At the functions (Vane-Wright, 1992). We may be interested basis of taxonomy lies that much-debated concept, the in classification as such, or in the evolutionary implica- species. tions of species; in the theory of species, or in simply M ODEL Because there is so much misunderstanding about how to recognize them; or in their reproductive, phys- what a species is, it is necessary to give some space to iological, or husbandry status. discussion of the concept. The importance of what we Most non-specialists probably have some vague mean by the word “species” goes way beyond taxonomy idea that species are defined by not interbreeding with as such: it affects such diverse fields as genetics, biogeog- each other; usually, that hybrids between different species raphy, population biology, ecology, ethology, and bio- are sterile, or that they are incapable of hybridizing at diversity; in an era in which threats to the natural all. Such an impression ultimately derives from the def- world and its biodiversity are accelerating, it affects inition by Mayr (1940), whereby species are “groups of conservation strategies (Rojas, 1992).
    [Show full text]
  • Species Concepts and the Evolutionary Paradigm in Modern Nematology
    JOURNAL OF NEMATOLOGY VOLUME 30 MARCH 1998 NUMBER 1 Journal of Nematology 30 (1) :1-21. 1998. © The Society of Nematologists 1998. Species Concepts and the Evolutionary Paradigm in Modern Nematology BYRON J. ADAMS 1 Abstract: Given the task of recovering and representing evolutionary history, nematode taxonomists can choose from among several species concepts. All species concepts have theoretical and (or) opera- tional inconsistencies that can result in failure to accurately recover and represent species. This failure not only obfuscates nematode taxonomy but hinders other research programs in hematology that are dependent upon a phylogenetically correct taxonomy, such as biodiversity, biogeography, cospeciation, coevolution, and adaptation. Three types of systematic errors inherent in different species concepts and their potential effects on these research programs are presented. These errors include overestimating and underestimating the number of species (type I and II error, respectively) and misrepresenting their phylogenetic relationships (type III error). For research programs in hematology that utilize recovered evolutionary history, type II and III errors are the most serious. Linnean, biological, evolutionary, and phylogenefic species concepts are evaluated based on their sensitivity to systematic error. Linnean and biologica[ species concepts are more prone to serious systematic error than evolutionary or phylogenetic concepts. As an alternative to the current paradigm, an amalgamation of evolutionary and phylogenetic species concepts is advocated, along with a set of discovery operations designed to minimize the risk of making systematic errors. Examples of these operations are applied to species and isolates of Heterorhab- ditis. Key words: adaptation, biodiversity, biogeography, coevolufion, comparative method, cospeciation, evolution, nematode, philosophy, species concepts, systematics, taxonomy.
    [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]
  • Lineages, Splits and Divergence Challenge Whether the Terms Anagenesis and Cladogenesis Are Necessary
    Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2015, , – . With 2 figures. Lineages, splits and divergence challenge whether the terms anagenesis and cladogenesis are necessary FELIX VAUX*, STEVEN A. TREWICK and MARY MORGAN-RICHARDS Ecology Group, Institute of Agriculture and Environment, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand Received 3 June 2015; revised 22 July 2015; accepted for publication 22 July 2015 Using the framework of evolutionary lineages to separate the process of evolution and classification of species, we observe that ‘anagenesis’ and ‘cladogenesis’ are unnecessary terms. The terms have changed significantly in meaning over time, and current usage is inconsistent and vague across many different disciplines. The most popular definition of cladogenesis is the splitting of evolutionary lineages (cessation of gene flow), whereas anagenesis is evolutionary change between splits. Cladogenesis (and lineage-splitting) is also regularly made synonymous with speciation. This definition is misleading as lineage-splitting is prolific during evolution and because palaeontological studies provide no direct estimate of gene flow. The terms also fail to incorporate speciation without being arbitrary or relative, and the focus upon lineage-splitting ignores the importance of divergence, hybridization, extinction and informative value (i.e. what is helpful to describe as a taxon) for species classification. We conclude and demonstrate that evolution and species diversity can be considered with greater clarity using simpler, more transparent terms than anagenesis and cladogenesis. Describing evolution and taxonomic classification can be straightforward, and there is no need to ‘make words mean so many different things’. © 2015 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2015, 00, 000–000.
    [Show full text]
  • Statistical Inference for the Linguistic and Non-Linguistic Past
    Statistical inference for the linguistic and non-linguistic past Igor Yanovich DFG Center for Advanced Study “Words, Bones, Genes and Tools” Universität Tübingen July 6, 2017 Igor Yanovich 1 / 46 Overview of the course Overview of the course 1 Today: trees, as a description and as a process 2 Classes 2-3: simple inference of language-family trees 3 Classes 4-5: computational statistical inference of trees and evolutionary parameters 4 Class 6: histories of languages and of genes 5 Class 7: simple spatial statistics 6 Class 8: regression taking into account linguistic relationships; synthesis of the course Igor Yanovich 2 / 46 Overview of the course Learning outcomes By the end of the course, you should be able to: 1 read and engage with the current literature in linguistic phylogenetics and in spatial statistics for linguistics 2 run phylogenetic and basic spatial analyses on linguistic data 3 proceed further in the subject matter on your own, towards further advances in the field Igor Yanovich 3 / 46 Overview of the course Today’s class 1 Overview of the course 2 Language families and their structures 3 Trees as classifications and as process depictions 4 Linguistic phylogenetics 5 Worries about phylogenetics in linguistics vs. biology 6 Quick overview of the homework 7 Summary of Class 1 Igor Yanovich 4 / 46 Language families and their structures Language families and their structures Igor Yanovich 5 / 46 Language families and their structures Dravidian A modification of [Krishnamurti, 2003, Map 1.1], from Wikipedia Igor Yanovich 6 / 46 Language families and their structures Dravidian [Krishnamurti, 2003]’s classification: Dravidian family South Dravidian Central Dravidian North Dravidian SD I SD II Tamil Malay¯al.am Kannad.a Telugu Kolami Brahui (70M) (38M) (40M) (75M) (0.1M) (4M) (Numbers of speakers from Wikipedia) Igor Yanovich 7 / 46 Language families and their structures Dravidian: similarities and differences Proto-Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Learning the “Game” of Life: Reconstruction of Cell Lineages Through Crispr-Induced Dna Mutations
    LEARNING THE “GAME” OF LIFE: RECONSTRUCTION OF CELL LINEAGES THROUGH CRISPR-INDUCED DNA MUTATIONS JIAXIAO CAI, DA KUANG, ARUN KIRUBARAJAN, MUKUND VENKATESWARAN ABSTRACT. Multi-cellular organisms are composed of many billions of individuals cells that exist by the mutation of a single stem cell. The CRISPR-based molecular-tools induce DNA mutations, which allows us to study the mutation lineages of various multi-ceulluar organisms. However, to date no lineage reconstruction algorithms have been examined for their performance/robustness across various molecular tools, datasets and sizes of lineage trees. In addition, it is unclear whether classical machine learning algorithms, deep neural networks or some combination of the two are the best approach for this task. In this paper, we introduce 1) a simulation framework for the zygote development process to achieve a dataset size required by deep learning models, and 2) various supervised and unsupervised approaches for cell mutation tree reconstruction. In particular, we show how deep generative models (Autoencoders and Variational Autoencoders), unsupervised clustering methods (K-means), and classical tree reconstruction algorithms (UPGMA) can all be used to trace cell mutation lineages. 1. INTRODUCTION Multi-cellular organisms are composed of billions or trillions of different interconnected cells that derive from a single cell through repeated rounds of cell division — knowing the cell lineage that produces a fully developed organism from a single cell provides the framework for understanding when, where, and how cell fate decisions are made. The recent advent of new CRISPR-based molecular tools synthetically induced DNA mutations and made it possible to solve lineage of complex model organisms at single-cell resolution.[1] Starting in early embryogenesis, CRISPR-induced mutations occur stochastically at introduced target sites, and these mutations are stably inherited by the offspring of these cells and immune to further change.
    [Show full text]
  • Phylogenetics
    Phylogenetics What is phylogenetics? • Study of branching patterns of descent among lineages • Lineages – Populations – Species – Molecules • Shift between population genetics and phylogenetics is often the species boundary – Distantly related populations also show patterning – Patterning across geography What is phylogenetics? • Goal: Determine and describe the evolutionary relationships among lineages – Order of events – Timing of events • Visualization: Phylogenetic trees – Graph – No cycles Phylogenetic trees • Nodes – Terminal – Internal – Degree • Branches • Topology Phylogenetic trees • Rooted or unrooted – Rooted: Precisely 1 internal node of degree 2 • Node that represents the common ancestor of all taxa – Unrooted: All internal nodes with degree 3+ Stephan Steigele Phylogenetic trees • Rooted or unrooted – Rooted: Precisely 1 internal node of degree 2 • Node that represents the common ancestor of all taxa – Unrooted: All internal nodes with degree 3+ Phylogenetic trees • Rooted or unrooted – Rooted: Precisely 1 internal node of degree 2 • Node that represents the common ancestor of all taxa – Unrooted: All internal nodes with degree 3+ • Binary: all speciation events produce two lineages from one • Cladogram: Topology only • Phylogram: Topology with edge lengths representing time or distance • Ultrametric: Rooted tree with time-based edge lengths (all leaves equidistant from root) Phylogenetic trees • Clade: Group of ancestral and descendant lineages • Monophyly: All of the descendants of a unique common ancestor • Polyphyly:
    [Show full text]
  • Speciation in Geographical Setting
    Speciation Speciation 2019 2019 The degree of reproductive isolation Substantial variation exists in among geographical sets of species - anagenesis populations within an actively 1859 1859 evolving species complex is often Achillea - yarrow tested by crossing experiments — as in the tidy tips of California 100K bp 100K bp back in time back in time back Rubus parviforus K = 4 mean population assignment 2 mya 2 mya ID CO WI_Door 5 mya BC_Hixton BC_MtRob WI_BruleS 5 mya BC_McLeod CA_Klamath MI_Windigo WA_Cascade WA_BridgeCr SD_BlackHills OR_Willamette MI_Drummond Speciation Speciation 2019 Reproductive isolation will ultimately stop all Although simple in concept, the recognition of species and thus the definition genetic connections among sets of populations of what are species have been controversial — more than likely due to the – cladogenesis or speciation continuum nature of the pattern resulting from the process of speciation 1859 Example: mechanical isolation via floral shape changes and pollinators between two parapatric species of California Salvia (sage) 100K bp back in time back 2 mya S. mellifera 5 mya Salvia apiana 1 Speciation Speciation Although simple in concept, the recognition of species and thus the definition Animal examples of speciation often show of what are species have been controversial — more than likely due to the clear reproductive barriers - hence zoologists continuum nature of the pattern resulting from the process of speciation preference (as opposed to botanists) for the Reproductive isolating Biological
    [Show full text]
  • Advances in Computational Methods for Phylogenetic Networks in the Presence of Hybridization
    Advances in Computational Methods for Phylogenetic Networks in the Presence of Hybridization R. A. Leo Elworth, Huw A. Ogilvie, Jiafan Zhu, and Luay Nakhleh Abstract Phylogenetic networks extend phylogenetic trees to allow for modeling reticulate evolutionary processes such as hybridization. They take the shape of a rooted, directed, acyclic graph, and when parameterized with evolutionary parame- ters, such as divergence times and population sizes, they form a generative process of molecular sequence evolution. Early work on computational methods for phylo- genetic network inference focused exclusively on reticulations and sought networks with the fewest number of reticulations to fit the data. As processes such as incom- plete lineage sorting (ILS) could be at play concurrently with hybridization, work in the last decade has shifted to computational approaches for phylogenetic net- work inference in the presence of ILS. In such a short period, significant advances have been made on developing and implementing such computational approaches. In particular, parsimony, likelihood, and Bayesian methods have been devised for estimating phylogenetic networks and associated parameters using estimated gene trees as data. Use of those inference methods has been augmented with statistical tests for specific hypotheses of hybridization, like the D-statistic. Most recently, Bayesian approaches for inferring phylogenetic networks directly from sequence data were developed and implemented. In this chapter, we survey such advances and discuss model assumptions as well as methods’ strengths and limitations. We also discuss parallel efforts in the population genetics community aimed at inferring similar structures. Finally, we highlight major directions for future research in this area. R. A. Leo Elworth Rice University e-mail: [email protected] Huw A.
    [Show full text]
  • Reading Phylogenetic Trees: a Quick Review (Adapted from Evolution.Berkeley.Edu)
    Biological Trees Gloria Rendon SC11 Education June, 2011 Biological trees • Biological trees are used for the purpose of classification, i.e. grouping and categorization of organisms by biological type such as genus or species. Types of Biological trees • Taxonomy trees, like the one hosted at NCBI, are hierarchies; thus classification is determined by position or rank within the hierarchy. It goes from kingdom to species. • Phylogenetic trees represent evolutionary relationships, or genealogy, among species. Nowadays, these trees are usually constructed by comparing 16s/18s ribosomal RNA. • Gene trees represent evolutionary relationships of a particular biological molecule (gene or protein product) among species. They may or may not match the species genealogy. Examples: hemoglobin tree, kinase tree, etc. TAXONOMY TREES Exercise 1: Exploring the Species Tree at NCBI •There exist many taxonomies. •In this exercise, we will examine the taxonomy at NCBI. •NCBI has a taxonomy database where each category in the tree (from the root to the species level) has a unique identifier called taxid. •The lineage of a species is the full path you take in that tree from the root to the point where that species is located. •The (NCBI) taxonomy common tree is therefore the tree that results from adding together the full lineages of each species in a particular list of your choice. Exercise 1: Exploring the Species Tree at NCBI • Open a web browser on NCBI’s Taxonomy page http://www.ncbi.nlm.n ih.gov/Taxonomy/ • Click on each one of the names here to look up the taxonomy id (taxid) of each one of the five categories of the taxonomy browser: Archaea, bacteria, Eukaryotes, Viroids and Viruses.
    [Show full text]
  • Phylogenetic Systematics As the Basis of Comparative Biology
    SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO BOTANY NUMBER 73 Phylogenetic Systematics as the Basis of Comparative Biology KA. Funk and Daniel R. Brooks SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION PRESS Washington, D.C. 1990 ABSTRACT Funk, V.A. and Daniel R. Brooks. Phylogenetic Systematics as the Basis of Comparative Biology. Smithsonian Contributions to Botany, number 73, 45 pages, 102 figures, 12 tables, 199O.-Evolution is the unifying concept of biology. The study of evolution can be approached from a within-lineage (microevolution) or among-lineage (macroevolution) perspective. Phylogenetic systematics (cladistics) is the appropriate basis for all among-liieage studies in comparative biology. Phylogenetic systematics enhances studies in comparative biology in many ways. In the study of developmental constraints, the use of such phylogenies allows for the investigation of the possibility that ontogenetic changes (heterochrony) alone may be sufficient to explain the perceived magnitude of phenotypic change. Speciation via hybridization can be suggested, based on the character patterns of phylogenies. Phylogenetic systematics allows one to examine the potential of historical explanations for biogeographic patterns as well as modes of speciation. The historical components of coevolution, along with ecological and behavioral diversification, can be compared to the explanations of adaptation and natural selection. Because of the explanatory capabilities of phylogenetic systematics, studies in comparative biology that are not based on such phylogenies fail to reach their potential. OFFICIAL PUBLICATION DATE is handstamped in a limited number of initial copies and is recorded in the Institution's annual report, Srnithonhn Year. SERIES COVER DESIGN: Leaf clearing from the katsura tree Cercidiphyllumjaponicum Siebold and Zuccarini. Library of Cmgrcss Cataloging-in-PublicationDiaa Funk, V.A (Vicki A.), 1947- PhylogmttiC ryrtcmaticsas tk basis of canpamtive biology / V.A.
    [Show full text]