Monophyly: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>DwightKingsbury short description--group of organisms |
imported>AnomieBOT m Dating maintenance tags: {{Fact}} |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ | {{Short description|Taxonomic concept}} | ||
{{See also|Crown group}} | {{See also|Crown group}} | ||
{{Use dmy dates|date=September 2020}} | {{Use dmy dates|date=September 2020}} | ||
[[File:Clade-grade II.svg|thumb|300x300px|A [[phylogenetic tree]]: both blue and red groups are ''monophyletic''. The green group is ''paraphyletic'': it is missing a monophyletic subgroup – the blue group – that shares a common ancestor with itself. In this form, ''monophyletic'' means "no sideways stems leaving the group".]] | [[File:Clade-grade II.svg|thumb|300x300px|A [[phylogenetic tree]]: both blue and red groups are ''monophyletic''. The green group is ''paraphyletic'': it is missing a monophyletic subgroup – the blue group – that shares a common ancestor with itself. In this form, ''monophyletic'' means "no sideways stems leaving the group".]] | ||
[[Image:Monophyly, paraphyly, polyphyly.svg|thumb|300px|A cladogram of the [[primate]]s, showing a ''monophyletic'' taxon: the ''[[simian]]s'' (in yellow); a ''paraphyletic'' taxon: the ''[[prosimian]]s'' (in cyan, including the red patch); and a ''polyphyletic'' group: ''the night-active primates, i.e., the [[loris]]es and the [[tarsier]]s'' (in red).]] | [[Image:Monophyly, paraphyly, polyphyly.svg|thumb|300px|A cladogram {{fact|date=October 2025}}of the [[primate]]s, showing a ''monophyletic'' taxon: the ''[[simian]]s'' (in yellow); a ''paraphyletic'' taxon: the ''[[prosimian]]s'' (in cyan, including the red patch); and a ''polyphyletic'' group: ''the night-active primates, i.e., the [[loris]]es and the [[tarsier]]s'' (in red).]] | ||
[[File:Phylogenetic-Groups.svg|thumbnail|300px|A cladogram of the vertebrates showing phylogenetic groups. A ''monophyletic'' [[taxon]] (in yellow): ''the group of "reptiles and birds"'', contains its most recent common ancestor and all descendants of that ancestor. A ''paraphyletic'' taxon (in cyan): ''the group of reptiles'', contains its most recent common ancestor, but does not contain all the descendants (namely Aves) of that ancestor. A ''polyphyletic'' "group" (in red): ''the group of [[Homeothermy|all warm-blooded amniotes]]'' (Aves and Mammalia), does not contain the most recent common ancestor of all its members; this group is not seen as a taxonomic unit and is not considered a taxon by modern [[systematics#Definition and relation with taxonomy|systematists]].]] | [[File:Phylogenetic-Groups.svg|thumbnail|300px|A cladogram of the vertebrates showing phylogenetic groups. A ''monophyletic'' [[taxon]] (in yellow): ''the group of "reptiles and birds"'', contains its most recent common ancestor and all descendants of that ancestor. A ''paraphyletic'' taxon (in cyan): ''the group of reptiles'', contains its most recent common ancestor, but does not contain all the descendants (namely Aves) of that ancestor. A ''polyphyletic'' "group" (in red): ''the group of [[Homeothermy|all warm-blooded amniotes]]'' (Aves and Mammalia), does not contain the most recent common ancestor of all its members; this group is not seen as a taxonomic unit and is not considered a taxon by modern [[systematics#Definition and relation with taxonomy|systematists]].]] | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
Monophyly is contrasted with [[paraphyly]] and [[polyphyly]] as shown in the second diagram. A ''paraphyletic'' grouping meets 1. but not 2., thus consisting of the descendants of a common ancestor, excepting one or more monophyletic subgroups. A ''[[polyphyly|polyphyletic]]'' grouping meets neither criterion, and instead serves to characterize [[Convergent evolution|convergent]] relationships of biological features rather than genetic relationships – for example, night-active primates, fruit trees, or aquatic insects. As such, these characteristic features of a polyphyletic grouping are not inherited from a common ancestor, but evolved independently. | Monophyly is contrasted with [[paraphyly]] and [[polyphyly]] as shown in the second diagram. A ''paraphyletic'' grouping meets 1. but not 2., thus consisting of the descendants of a common ancestor, excepting one or more monophyletic subgroups. A ''[[polyphyly|polyphyletic]]'' grouping meets neither criterion, and instead serves to characterize [[Convergent evolution|convergent]] relationships of biological features rather than genetic relationships – for example, night-active primates, fruit trees, or aquatic insects. As such, these characteristic features of a polyphyletic grouping are not inherited from a common ancestor, but evolved independently. | ||
Monophyletic groups are typically characterised by shared derived characteristics ([[Synapomorphy|synapomorphies]]), which distinguish organisms in the clade from other organisms. An equivalent term is '''holophyly'''.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Allaby |first=Michael |title=A Dictionary of Ecology (5 ed.) |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2015 |isbn= | Monophyletic groups are typically characterised by shared derived characteristics ([[Synapomorphy|synapomorphies]]), which distinguish organisms in the clade from other organisms. An equivalent term is '''holophyly'''.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Allaby |first=Michael |title=A Dictionary of Ecology (5 ed.) |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2015 |isbn=978-0-19-179315-8 |location=Oxford}}</ref> | ||
The word "mono-phyly" means "one-tribe" in Greek. | The word "mono-phyly" means "one-tribe" in Greek. | ||
These definitions have taken some time to be accepted. When the cladistics school of thought became mainstream in the 1960s, several alternative definitions were in use. Indeed, [[taxonomist]]s sometimes used terms without defining them, leading to confusion in the early literature,<ref name="Hennig-1999">{{cite book |last1=Hennig |first1=Willi |translator-first1=D. |translator-last1=Davis |translator-first2=R. |translator-last2=Zangerl |title=Phylogenetic Systematics |year=1999 |orig- | These definitions have taken some time to be accepted. When the cladistics school of thought became mainstream in the 1960s, several alternative definitions were in use. Indeed, [[taxonomist]]s sometimes used terms without defining them, leading to confusion in the early literature,<ref name="Hennig-1999">{{cite book |last1=Hennig |first1=Willi |translator-first1=D. |translator-last1=Davis |translator-first2=R. |translator-last2=Zangerl |title=Phylogenetic Systematics |year=1999 |orig-date=1966 |publisher=Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois |edition=Illinois Reissue |pages=72–77 |isbn=978-0-252-06814-0}}</ref> a confusion which persists.<ref name="Aubert-2015">{{cite journal |last1=Damien |first1=Aubert |date=2015 |title=A formal analysis of phylogenetic terminology: Towards a reconsideration of the current paradigm in systematics |url=https://hal.science/hal-01240878/file/66PhytoN-PhylogeneticTerminology.pdf |journal=Phytoneuron |issue=2015–66 |pages=1–54}}</ref> | ||
The first diagram shows a [[phylogenetic tree]] with two monophyletic groups. The several groups and subgroups are particularly situated as branches of the tree to indicate ordered lineal relationships between all the organisms shown. Further, any group may (or may not) be considered a [[taxon]] by modern [[systematics#Definition and relation with taxonomy|systematics]], depending upon the selection of its members in relation to their common ancestor(s); see second and third diagrams. | The first diagram shows a [[phylogenetic tree]] with two monophyletic groups. The several groups and subgroups are particularly situated as branches of the tree to indicate ordered lineal relationships between all the organisms shown. Further, any group may (or may not) be considered a [[taxon]] by modern [[systematics#Definition and relation with taxonomy|systematics]], depending upon the selection of its members in relation to their common ancestor(s); see second and third diagrams. | ||
== Etymology == | == Etymology == | ||
The term ''monophyly'', or ''monophyletic'', derives from the two [[Ancient Greek]] words {{wikt-lang|grc|μόνος}} ({{grc-transl|μόνος}}), meaning "alone, only, unique", and {{wikt-lang|grc|φῦλον}} ({{grc-transl|φῦλον}}), meaning "genus, species",<ref name="Bailly-1981">{{Cite book |title=Abrégé du dictionnaire grec français |last=Bailly |first=Anatole |date=1981-01-01 |publisher=Hachette |isbn=978- | The term ''monophyly'', or ''monophyletic'', derives from the two [[Ancient Greek]] words {{wikt-lang|grc|μόνος}} ({{grc-transl|μόνος}}), meaning "alone, only, unique", and {{wikt-lang|grc|φῦλον}} ({{grc-transl|φῦλον}}), meaning "genus, species",<ref name="Bailly-1981">{{Cite book |title=Abrégé du dictionnaire grec français |last=Bailly |first=Anatole |date=1981-01-01 |publisher=Hachette |isbn=978-2-01-003528-9 |location=Paris |oclc=461974285 }}</ref><ref name="Bailly">{{Cite web |url=http://www.tabularium.be/bailly/ |title=Greek-french dictionary online |last=Bailly |first=Anatole |website=www.tabularium.be |access-date=7 March 2018 |archive-date=18 March 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220318000653/http://www.tabularium.be/bailly/ |url-status=dead }}</ref> and refers to the fact that a monophyletic group includes organisms (e.g., genera, species) consisting of all the descendants of a ''unique'' common ancestor. | ||
Conversely, the term ''[[polyphyly]]'', or ''polyphyletic'', builds on the ancient Greek prefix {{wikt-lang|grc|πολύς}} ({{grc-transl|πολύς}}), meaning "many, a lot of",<ref name="Bailly-1981"/><ref name="Bailly"/> and refers to the fact that a polyphyletic group includes organisms arising from ''multiple'' ancestral sources. | Conversely, the term ''[[polyphyly]]'', or ''polyphyletic'', builds on the ancient Greek prefix {{wikt-lang|grc|πολύς}} ({{grc-transl|πολύς}}), meaning "many, a lot of",<ref name="Bailly-1981"/><ref name="Bailly"/> and refers to the fact that a polyphyletic group includes organisms arising from ''multiple'' ancestral sources. | ||
By comparison, the term ''[[paraphyly]]'', or ''paraphyletic'', uses the ancient Greek prefix {{wikt-lang|grc|παρά}} ({{grc-transl|παρά}}), meaning "beside, near",<ref name="Bailly-1981"/><ref name="Bailly"/> and refers to the situation in which one or several monophyletic subgroups are ''left apart'' from all other descendants of a unique common ancestor. That is, a paraphyletic group is ''nearly'' monophyletic, hence the prefix ''{{grc-transl|παρά}}''. | By comparison, the term ''[[paraphyly]]'', or ''paraphyletic'', uses the ancient Greek prefix {{wikt-lang|grc|παρά}} ({{grc-transl|παρά}}), meaning "beside, near",<ref name="Bailly-1981"/><ref name="Bailly"/> and refers to the situation in which one or several monophyletic subgroups are ''left apart'' from all other descendants of a unique common ancestor. That is, a paraphyletic group is ''nearly'' monophyletic, hence the prefix ''{{grc-transl|παρά}}''. {{cn|date=August 2025}} | ||
== Definitions == | == Definitions == | ||
| Line 59: | Line 59: | ||
| jstor=2412223 | | jstor=2412223 | ||
}}</ref> However, this broader definition encompasses both monophyletic and paraphyletic groups as defined above. Therefore, most scientists today restrict the term "monophyletic" to refer to groups consisting of all the descendants of one (hypothetical) common ancestor.<ref name="Hennig-1999"/> However, when considering taxonomic groups such as genera and species, the most appropriate nature of their common ancestor is rather a population. Assuming that it would be one individual or mating pair is unrealistic for sexually reproducing species, which are by definition interbreeding populations.<ref name="Simpson-1961">{{cite book |last=Simpson |first=George |url=https://archive.org/details/principlesofanim0000simp |title=Principles of Animal Taxonomy |publisher=Columbia University Press |year=1990 |isbn=978-0-231-09650-8 |location=New York |url-access=registration}}</ref> | }}</ref> However, this broader definition encompasses both monophyletic and paraphyletic groups as defined above. Therefore, most scientists today restrict the term "monophyletic" to refer to groups consisting of all the descendants of one (hypothetical) common ancestor.<ref name="Hennig-1999"/> However, when considering taxonomic groups such as genera and species, the most appropriate nature of their common ancestor is rather a population. Assuming that it would be one individual or mating pair is unrealistic for sexually reproducing species, which are by definition interbreeding populations.<ref name="Simpson-1961">{{cite book |last=Simpson |first=George |url=https://archive.org/details/principlesofanim0000simp |title=Principles of Animal Taxonomy |publisher=Columbia University Press |year=1990 |isbn=978-0-231-09650-8 |location=New York |url-access=registration}}</ref> | ||
* Monophyly (or holophyly) and associated terms are restricted to discussions of taxa, and are not necessarily accurate when used to describe what Hennig called tokogenetic relationships – now referred to as genealogies. Some argue that using a broader definition, such as a species and all its descendants, does not really work to define a genus.<ref name="Simpson-1961"/> The loose definition also fails to recognize the relations of all organisms.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/Taxon_types.htm|title=Monophyletic, Polyphyletic, & Paraphyletc Taxa|last=Carr|first=Steven M|website=www.mun.ca|access-date=2018-02-23}}</ref> According to D. M. Stamos, a satisfactory cladistic definition of a species or genus is impossible because many species (and even genera) may form by "budding" from an existing species, leaving the parent species paraphyletic; or the species or genera may be the result of [[hybrid speciation]].<ref>{{cite book|last=Stamos|first=D.N.|title=The species problem : biological species, ontology, and the metaphysics of biology|year=2003|publisher=Lexington Books|location=Lanham, Md. [u.a.]|isbn=978- | * Monophyly (or holophyly) and associated terms are restricted to discussions of taxa, and are not necessarily accurate when used to describe what Hennig called tokogenetic relationships – now referred to as genealogies. Some argue that using a broader definition, such as a species and all its descendants, does not really work to define a genus.<ref name="Simpson-1961"/> The loose definition also fails to recognize the relations of all organisms.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/Taxon_types.htm|title=Monophyletic, Polyphyletic, & Paraphyletc Taxa|last=Carr|first=Steven M|website=www.mun.ca|access-date=2018-02-23}}</ref> According to D. M. Stamos, a satisfactory cladistic definition of a species or genus is impossible because many species (and even genera) may form by "budding" from an existing species, leaving the parent species paraphyletic; or the species or genera may be the result of [[hybrid speciation]].<ref>{{cite book|last=Stamos|first=D.N.|title=The species problem: biological species, ontology, and the metaphysics of biology|year=2003|publisher=Lexington Books|location=Lanham, Md. [u.a.]|isbn=978-0-7391-0503-0|pages=261–268|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=jPAjv5FsKMYC&q=defining+species+cladistically%27&pg=PA260}}</ref> | ||
The concepts of monophyly, [[paraphyly]], and [[polyphyly]] have been used in deducing key genes for [[DNA barcoding|barcoding]] of diverse group of species.<ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.1016/j.gene.2019.143967 |title=Diagnosis of mitogenome for robust phylogeny: A case of Cypriniformes fish group |journal=Gene |volume=713 | | The concepts of monophyly, [[paraphyly]], and [[polyphyly]] have been used in deducing key genes for [[DNA barcoding|barcoding]] of diverse group of species.<ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.1016/j.gene.2019.143967 |title=Diagnosis of mitogenome for robust phylogeny: A case of Cypriniformes fish group |journal=Gene |volume=713 |article-number=143967 |year=2019 |last1=Parhi J., Tripathy P.S., Priyadarshi, H. |first1=Mandal S.C., Pandey P.K. |pmid=31279710 |s2cid=195828782 }}</ref> | ||
== See also == | == See also == | ||
Latest revision as of 02:56, 29 October 2025
Template:Short description Script error: No such module "Labelled list hatnote". Template:Use dmy dates
In biological cladistics for the classification of organisms, monophyly is the condition of a taxonomic grouping being a clade – that is, a grouping of organisms which meets these criteria:
- the grouping contains its own most recent common ancestor (or more precisely an ancestral population), i.e. excludes non-descendants of that common ancestor
- the grouping contains all the descendants of that common ancestor, without exception
Monophyly is contrasted with paraphyly and polyphyly as shown in the second diagram. A paraphyletic grouping meets 1. but not 2., thus consisting of the descendants of a common ancestor, excepting one or more monophyletic subgroups. A polyphyletic grouping meets neither criterion, and instead serves to characterize convergent relationships of biological features rather than genetic relationships – for example, night-active primates, fruit trees, or aquatic insects. As such, these characteristic features of a polyphyletic grouping are not inherited from a common ancestor, but evolved independently.
Monophyletic groups are typically characterised by shared derived characteristics (synapomorphies), which distinguish organisms in the clade from other organisms. An equivalent term is holophyly.[1]
The word "mono-phyly" means "one-tribe" in Greek.
These definitions have taken some time to be accepted. When the cladistics school of thought became mainstream in the 1960s, several alternative definitions were in use. Indeed, taxonomists sometimes used terms without defining them, leading to confusion in the early literature,[2] a confusion which persists.[3]
The first diagram shows a phylogenetic tree with two monophyletic groups. The several groups and subgroups are particularly situated as branches of the tree to indicate ordered lineal relationships between all the organisms shown. Further, any group may (or may not) be considered a taxon by modern systematics, depending upon the selection of its members in relation to their common ancestor(s); see second and third diagrams.
Etymology
The term monophyly, or monophyletic, derives from the two Ancient Greek words Template:Wikt-lang (Template:Grc-transl), meaning "alone, only, unique", and Template:Wikt-lang (Template:Grc-transl), meaning "genus, species",[4][5] and refers to the fact that a monophyletic group includes organisms (e.g., genera, species) consisting of all the descendants of a unique common ancestor.
Conversely, the term polyphyly, or polyphyletic, builds on the ancient Greek prefix Template:Wikt-lang (Template:Grc-transl), meaning "many, a lot of",[4][5] and refers to the fact that a polyphyletic group includes organisms arising from multiple ancestral sources.
By comparison, the term paraphyly, or paraphyletic, uses the ancient Greek prefix Template:Wikt-lang (Template:Grc-transl), meaning "beside, near",[4][5] and refers to the situation in which one or several monophyletic subgroups are left apart from all other descendants of a unique common ancestor. That is, a paraphyletic group is nearly monophyletic, hence the prefix Template:Grc-transl. Script error: No such module "Unsubst".
Definitions
On the broadest scale, definitions fall into two groups.
- Willi Hennig (1966:148) defined monophyly as groups based on synapomorphy (in contrast to paraphyletic groups, based on symplesiomorphy, and polyphyletic groups, based on convergence). Some authors have sought to define monophyly to include paraphyly as any two or more groups sharing a common ancestor.[3][6][7][8] However, this broader definition encompasses both monophyletic and paraphyletic groups as defined above. Therefore, most scientists today restrict the term "monophyletic" to refer to groups consisting of all the descendants of one (hypothetical) common ancestor.[2] However, when considering taxonomic groups such as genera and species, the most appropriate nature of their common ancestor is rather a population. Assuming that it would be one individual or mating pair is unrealistic for sexually reproducing species, which are by definition interbreeding populations.[9]
- Monophyly (or holophyly) and associated terms are restricted to discussions of taxa, and are not necessarily accurate when used to describe what Hennig called tokogenetic relationships – now referred to as genealogies. Some argue that using a broader definition, such as a species and all its descendants, does not really work to define a genus.[9] The loose definition also fails to recognize the relations of all organisms.[10] According to D. M. Stamos, a satisfactory cladistic definition of a species or genus is impossible because many species (and even genera) may form by "budding" from an existing species, leaving the parent species paraphyletic; or the species or genera may be the result of hybrid speciation.[11]
The concepts of monophyly, paraphyly, and polyphyly have been used in deducing key genes for barcoding of diverse group of species.[12]
See also
References
External links
- Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
- Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
- Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
- Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
Script error: No such module "Navbox".
- ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
- ↑ a b Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
- ↑ a b Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
- ↑ a b c Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
- ↑ a b c Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
- ↑ Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
- ↑ Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
- ↑ Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
- ↑ a b Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
- ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
- ↑ Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
- ↑ Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".