Defining and redefining monophyly: Haeckel, Hennig, Ashlock, Nelson and the proliferation of definitions
Tegan A. Vanderlaan A D , Malte C. Ebach A , David M. Williams B and John S. Wilkins C
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations
A School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales, NSW 2052, Australia.
B Department of Life Sciences, the Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, United Kingdom.
C Department of Philosophy, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia.
D Corresponding author. Email: tegan_av@hotmail.com
Australian Systematic Botany 26(5) 347-355 https://doi.org/10.1071/SB13031
Submitted: 15 July 2013 Accepted: 13 November 2013 Published: 20 December 2013
Abstract
The various existing definitions of monophyly have resulted in confusion within the systematics community. The divergence in terminology started with the work of Willi Hennig who attempted to introduce a precise definition of phylogenetic relationship in 1950, a term that he had synonymised with monophyly by 1953, thereby creating a new definition. In 1965, Hennig introduced paraphyly to distinguish his version of monophyly from groups based on symplesiomorphies or stem groups. In attempting to resolve the confusion, Ashlock synonymised Hennig’s monophyly as holophyly, resulting in another new term. Ashlock, Mayr and others defended Haeckel’s original use of monophyly, by including holophyly and paraphyly. The result was an unresolved 21-year debate on monophyly and its various uses. A review of the history of monophyly and the origins of its various definitions has resulted in two new terms to distinguish the different versions of monophyly currently in use: diamonophyly, which group definitions based a notion of ancestor-descendant relationships, and synmonophyly, which groups definition based on kinship relationships. The terms ‘reciprocal monophyly’ and ‘oligophyly’ are discussed as being diamonophyletic.
Additional keywords: diamonophyly, holophyly, oligophyly, paraphyly, synmonophyly.
References
Ashlock PD (1971) Monophyly and associated terms. Systematic Zoology 20, 63–69.| Monophyly and associated terms.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Ashlock PD (1972) Monophyly again. Systematic Zoology 21, 430–438.
| Monophyly again.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Ashlock PD (1974) The uses of cladistics. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 5, 81–99.
| The uses of cladistics.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Ashlock PD (1979) An evolutionary systematist’s view of classification. Systematic Zoology 28, 441–450.
| An evolutionary systematist’s view of classification.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Ashlock PD (1984) Monophyly: its meaning and importance. In ‘Cladistics: Perspectives on the Reconstruction of Evolutionary History’. (Eds T Duncan, TF Stuessy) pp. 39–46. (Columbia University Press: New York)
Assis LCS (2013) Species and tokogenetic homologies: 10 sutras. Cladistics
| Species and tokogenetic homologies: 10 sutras.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | [Published online early 4 June 2013]
Assis LCS, Rieppel O (2011) Are monophyly and synapomorphy the same or different? Revisiting the role of morphology in phylogenetics. Cladistics 27, 94–102.
| Are monophyly and synapomorphy the same or different? Revisiting the role of morphology in phylogenetics.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Austerlitz F, David O, Schaeffer B, Bleakley K, Olteanu M, Leblois R, Veuille M, Laredo C (2009) DNA barcode analysis: a comparison of phylogenetic and statistical classification methods. BMC Bioinformatics 10, S10
| DNA barcode analysis: a comparison of phylogenetic and statistical classification methods.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 19900297PubMed |
Avise JC, Shapira JF, Daniel SW, Aquadro CF, Lansman RA (1983) Mitochondrial DNA differentiation during the speciation process in Peromyscus. Molecular Biology and Evolution 1, 38–56.
Bigelow RS (1956) Monophyletic classification and evolution. Systematic Zoology 5, 145–146.
| Monophyletic classification and evolution.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Bock WJ (1968) Phylogenetic systematics, cladistics and evolution. Evolution 22, 646–648.
| Phylogenetic systematics, cladistics and evolution.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Bock WJ (1973) Philosophical foundations of classical evolutionary classification. Systematic Zoology 22, 375–392.
| Philosophical foundations of classical evolutionary classification.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Borgmeier T (1957) Basic questions of systematics. Systematic Zoology 6, 53–69.
| Basic questions of systematics.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Brundin L (1966) Transantarctic relationships and their significance, as evidenced by chironomid midges; with a monograph of the subfamilies Podonominae and Aphroteniinae and the austral Heptagyiae. Kungliga Svenska Vetenskapsakademiens Handlinger 11, 1–472.
Cain AJ, Harrison GA (1958) An analysis of the taxonomist’s judgment of affinity. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 1, 85–98.
Colless DH (1967) The phylogenetic fallacy. Systematic Zoology 16, 289–295.
| The phylogenetic fallacy.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Darlington PJ (1970) A practical criticism of Hennig–Brundin ‘phylogenetic systematics’ and antarctic biogeography. Systematic Zoology 19, 1–18.
| A practical criticism of Hennig–Brundin ‘phylogenetic systematics’ and antarctic biogeography.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Darlington PJ (1972) What is cladism? Systematic Biology 21, 128–129.
| What is cladism?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
De Queiroz K (2007) Species concepts and species delimitation. Systematic Biology 56, 879–886.
| Species concepts and species delimitation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 18027281PubMed |
Ebach MC, Williams DM (2010) Aphyly: a systematic designation for a taxonomic problem. Evolutionary Biology 37, 123–127.
| Aphyly: a systematic designation for a taxonomic problem.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Farris JS (1974) Formal definitions of paraphyly and polyphyly. Systematic Zoology 23, 548–554.
| Formal definitions of paraphyly and polyphyly.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Farris JS (1990) Haeckel, history, and Hull. Systematic Zoology 39, 81–88.
| Haeckel, history, and Hull.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Farris JS (2007) Processed science. Darwiniana 45, 7–8.
Haeckel E (1866) ‘Generelle Morphologie der Organismen. Erster Band: allgemeine Anatomie der Organismen.’ (Georg Reimer: Berlin)
Haeckel E (1874) The gastraea-theory, the phylogenetic classification of the animal kingdom, and the homology of the germ-lamellae. The Quarterly Journal of Microscopical Science 14, 142–165.
Hennig W (1950) ‘Grundzüge einer Theorie der phylogenetischen Systematik.’ (Deutscher Zentralverlag: Berlin)
Hennig W (1953) Kritische Bemerkungen zum phylogenetischen System der Insekten. Beiträge Zur Entomologie 3, 1–85.
Hennig W (1965) Phylogenetic systematics. Annual Review of Entomology 10, 97–116.
| Phylogenetic systematics.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Hennig W (1966) ‘Phylogenetic Systematics.’ (University of Illinois Press: Urbana, IL)
Hennig W (1975) ‘Cladistic analysis or cladistic classification?’ A reply to Ernst Mayr. Systematic Zoology 24, 244–256.
| ‘Cladistic analysis or cladistic classification?’ A reply to Ernst Mayr.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Hull DL (1988) ‘Science as a Process.’ (University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL)
Hull DL (1990) Farris on Haeckel, history and Hull. Systematic Zoology 39, 397–399.
| Farris on Haeckel, history and Hull.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Kenneth JH (1960) ‘A Dictionary of Scientific Terms.’ (Oliver and Boyd: Edinburgh)
Kiriakoff SG (1959) Phylogenetic systematics versus topology. Systematic Zoology 8, 117–118.
| Phylogenetic systematics versus topology.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Kizirian D, Donnelly MA (2004) The criterion of reciprocal monophyly and classification diversity at the species level. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 32, 1072–1076.
| The criterion of reciprocal monophyly and classification diversity at the species level.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 15288076PubMed |
Mayr E (1942) ‘Systematics and the Origin of Species: From the Viewpoint of a Zoologist.’ (Columbia University Press: New York)
Mayr E (1965) Numerical phenetics and taxonomic theory. Systematic Zoology 14, 73–97.
| Numerical phenetics and taxonomic theory.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Mayr E (1969) ‘Principles of Systematic Zoology.’ (McGraw-Hill: New York)
Mayr E (1974) Cladistic analysis or cladistic classification? Zeitschrift für Systematik und Evolutionsforschung 12, 94–128.
| Cladistic analysis or cladistic classification?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Neigel JE, Avise JC (1986) Phylogenetic relationships of mitochondrial DNA under various demographic models of speciation. In ‘Evolutionary Processes and Theory’. (Eds E Nevo, S Karlin) pp. 515–534. (Academic Press: New York)
Nelson GJ (1969) The problem of historical biogeography. Systematic Biology 18, 243–246.
Nelson GJ (1971) Paraphyly and polyphyly redefinitions. Systematic Zoology 20, 471–472.
| Paraphyly and polyphyly redefinitions.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Nelson GJ (1972) Comments on Hennig’s ‘phylogenetic systematics’ and its influence on ichthyology. Systematic Zoology 21, 364–374.
| Comments on Hennig’s ‘phylogenetic systematics’ and its influence on ichthyology.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Nelson GJ (1973) ‘Monophyly again?’ A reply to P. D. Ashlock. Systematic Zoology 22, 310–312.
| ‘Monophyly again?’ A reply to P. D. Ashlock.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Nelson GJ (1994) Homology and systematics. In ‘Homology: The Hierarchical Basis of Comparative Biology’. (Ed. BK Hall) pp. 102–138 (Academic Press: San Diego, CA)
Nixon KC, Carpenter JM (2012) On homology. Cladistics 28, 160–169.
| On homology.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Nixon KC, Wheeler QD (1990) An amplification of the phylogenetic species concept. Cladistics 6, 211–223.
| An amplification of the phylogenetic species concept.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Platnick NI (1977) Paraphyletic and polyphyletic groups. Systematic Zoology 26, 195–200.
| Paraphyletic and polyphyletic groups.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Richards R (2008) ‘Tragic Sense of Life: Ernst Haeckel and the Struggle over Evolutionary Thought.’ (University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL)
Richter S, Meier R (1994) The development of phylogenetic concepts in Hennig’s early theoretical publications (1947–1966). Systematic Biology 43, 212–221.
Rieppel O (2009) Hennig’s enkaptic system. Cladistics 25, 311–317.
| Hennig’s enkaptic system.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Rieppel O (2010) Species monophyly. Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Research 48, 1–8.
| Species monophyly.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Rieppel O (2011) Ernst Haeckel (1834–1919) and the monophyly of life. Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Research 49, 1–5.
| Ernst Haeckel (1834–1919) and the monophyly of life.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Sattler R (1964) Methodological problems in taxonomy. Systematic Zoology 13, 19–27.
| Methodological problems in taxonomy.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Schmitt M (2013) ‘From taxonomy to Phylogenetics: Life and Work of Willi Hennig.’ (Koninklijke Brill: Leiden, the Netherlands)
Simpson GG (1961) ‘Principles of Animal Taxonomy.’ (Columbia University Press: New York)
Slater JA, Polhemus JT (1990) Obituary: Peter D. Ashlock 1929–1989. Journal of the New York Entomological Society 98, 113–122.
Sokal RR, Camin JH (1965) The two taxonomies: areas of agreement and conflict. Systematic Zoology 14, 176–195.
| The two taxonomies: areas of agreement and conflict.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Urbanek A (1998) Oligophyly and evolutionary parallelism: a case study of Silurian graptolites. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 43, 549–572.
Wheeler QD, Meier R (2000) ‘Species Concepts and Phylogenetic Theory: a Debate.’ (Columbia University Press: New York)
Zhu S, Degnan JH, Steel M (2011) Clades, clans, and reciprocal monophyly under neutral evolutionary models. Theoretical Population Biology 79, 220–227.
| Clades, clans, and reciprocal monophyly under neutral evolutionary models.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 21420994PubMed |
Zimmermann W (1931) Arbeitsweise der botanischen Phylogenetik und anderer Gruppierungswissenschaften. In ‘Handbuch der vergleichenden Anatomie der Wirbeltiere’, (Eds L Bolk, E Goppaert, E Kallius, W Lubosch), Band 9, pp. 942–1053. (Urban & Schwarzenberg: Berlin)
