Paraphyly: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Chiswick Chap
imported>Historical Cartograph
added wasps and crustaceans as example groups (confirmed thoroughly in their respective articles)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Type of taxonomic group}}
{{Short description|Type of taxonomic group}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=November 2019}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=November 2019}}
{{not to be confused with|paraphilia}}
[[File:Clade-grade II.svg|thumb|300px|In this [[phylogenetic tree]], the green group is ''paraphyletic''; it is composed of a common ancestor (the lowest green vertical stem) and some of its descendants, but it excludes the blue group (a monophyletic group) which [[Divergent evolution|diverged]] from the green group.]]
[[File:Clade-grade II.svg|thumb|300px|In this [[phylogenetic tree]], the green group is ''paraphyletic''; it is composed of a common ancestor (the lowest green vertical stem) and some of its descendants, but it excludes the blue group (a monophyletic group) which [[Divergent evolution|diverged]] from the green group.]]


Line 7: Line 8:
The terms are commonly used in [[phylogenetics]] (a subfield of [[biology]]) and in the [[tree model]] of [[historical linguistics]]. Paraphyletic groups are identified by a combination of [[Synapomorphy and apomorphy|synapomorphies]] and [[symplesiomorphy|symplesiomorphies]]. If many subgroups are missing from the named group, it is said to be polyparaphyletic.
The terms are commonly used in [[phylogenetics]] (a subfield of [[biology]]) and in the [[tree model]] of [[historical linguistics]]. Paraphyletic groups are identified by a combination of [[Synapomorphy and apomorphy|synapomorphies]] and [[symplesiomorphy|symplesiomorphies]]. If many subgroups are missing from the named group, it is said to be polyparaphyletic.


The term received currency during the debates of the 1960s and 1970s accompanying the rise of [[cladistics]], having been coined by zoologist [[Willi Hennig]] to apply to well-known taxa like Reptilia ([[reptile]]s), which is paraphyletic with respect to [[bird]]s. Reptilia contains the last common ancestor of reptiles and all descendants of that ancestor except for birds. Other commonly recognized paraphyletic groups include [[fish]],<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Greene |first=Harry W. |date=1998-01-01 |title=We are primates and we are fish: Teaching monophyletic organismal biology |journal=Integrative Biology |volume=1 |issue=3 |pages=108–111 |doi=10.1002/(sici)1520-6602(1998)1:3<108::aid-inbi5>3.0.co;2-t |issn=1520-6602}}</ref> [[monkey]]s,<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.geol.umd.edu/~tholtz/G204/lectures/204scatterlings.html|title=The fossil record: the scatterlings of Africa: the origins of humanity |first=Thomas R. |last=Holtz |publisher=University of Maryland |access-date=6 February 2019}}</ref> and [[lizard]]s.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Reeder |first1=Tod W. |last2=Townsend |first2=Ted M. |last3=Mulcahy |first3=Daniel G. |last4=Noonan |first4=Brice P.|last5=Wood |first5=Perry L. |last6=Sites |first6=Jack W. |last7=Wiens |first7=John J.|title=Integrated Analyses Resolve Conflicts over Squamate Reptile Phylogeny and Reveal Unexpected Placements for Fossil Taxa |journal=PLOS ONE |date=2015 |volume=10 |issue=3 |pages=e0118199 |doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0118199 |pmid=25803280|pmc=4372529|bibcode=2015PLoSO..1018199R |doi-access=free }}</ref>
The term received currency during the debates of the 1960s and 1970s accompanying the rise of [[cladistics]], having been coined by zoologist [[Willi Hennig]] to apply to well-known taxa like Reptilia ([[reptile]]s), which is paraphyletic with respect to [[bird]]s. Reptilia contains the last common ancestor of reptiles and all descendants of that ancestor except for birds. Other commonly recognized paraphyletic groups include [[fish]],<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Greene |first=Harry W. |date=1998-01-01 |title=We are primates and we are fish: Teaching monophyletic organismal biology |journal=Integrative Biology |volume=1 |issue=3 |pages=108–111 |doi=10.1002/(sici)1520-6602(1998)1:3<108::aid-inbi5>3.0.co;2-t |issn=1520-6602}}</ref> [[monkey]]s,<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.geol.umd.edu/~tholtz/G204/lectures/204scatterlings.html|title=The fossil record: the scatterlings of Africa: the origins of humanity |first=Thomas R. |last=Holtz |publisher=University of Maryland |access-date=6 February 2019}}</ref> [[lizard]]s,<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Reeder |first1=Tod W. |last2=Townsend |first2=Ted M. |last3=Mulcahy |first3=Daniel G. |last4=Noonan |first4=Brice P.|last5=Wood |first5=Perry L. |last6=Sites |first6=Jack W. |last7=Wiens |first7=John J.|title=Integrated Analyses Resolve Conflicts over Squamate Reptile Phylogeny and Reveal Unexpected Placements for Fossil Taxa |journal=PLOS ONE |date=2015 |volume=10 |issue=3 |article-number=e0118199 |doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0118199 |pmid=25803280|pmc=4372529|bibcode=2015PLoSO..1018199R |doi-access=free }}</ref>, [[wasp]]s, and [[crustacean]]s.


== Etymology ==
== Etymology ==


The term ''paraphyly'', or ''paraphyletic'', derives from the two [[Ancient Greek]] words {{wikt-lang|grc|παρά}} ({{grc-transl|παρά}}), meaning "beside, near", and {{wikt-lang|grc|φῦλον}} ({{grc-transl|φῦλον}}), meaning "genus, species",<ref name="Bailly1981">{{Cite book |title=Abrégé du dictionnaire grec français |last=Bailly |first=Anatole |date=1 January 1981 |publisher=Hachette |isbn=978-2-01-003528-9 |location=Paris |oclc=461974285 }}</ref><ref name="Tabularium">{{Cite web |url=http://www.tabularium.be/bailly/ |title=Greek-French dictionary online |last=Bailly |first=Anatole |website=www.tabularium.be |access-date=8 March 2018}}</ref> and refers to the situation in which one or several monophyletic subgroups of organisms (e.g., genera, species) are ''left apart'' from all other descendants of a unique common ancestor.
The term ''paraphyly'', or ''paraphyletic'', derives from the two [[Ancient Greek]] words {{wikt-lang|grc|παρά}} ({{grc-transl|παρά}}), meaning "beside, near", and {{wikt-lang|grc|φῦλον}} ({{grc-transl|φῦλον}}), meaning "genus, species",<ref name="Bailly1981">{{Cite book |title=Abrégé du dictionnaire grec français |last=Bailly |first=Anatole |date=1 January 1981 |publisher=Hachette |isbn=978-2-01-003528-9 |location=Paris |oclc=461974285 }}</ref><ref name="Tabularium">{{Cite web |url=http://www.tabularium.be/bailly/ |title=Greek-French dictionary online |last=Bailly |first=Anatole |website=www.tabularium.be |access-date=8 March 2018 |archive-date=18 March 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220318000653/http://www.tabularium.be/bailly/ }}</ref> and refers to the situation in which one or several monophyletic subgroups of organisms (e.g., genera, species) are ''left apart'' from all other descendants of a unique common ancestor.


Conversely, the term ''[[monophyly]]'', or ''monophyletic'', builds on the Ancient Greek prefix {{wikt-lang|grc|μόνος}} ({{grc-transl|μόνος}}), meaning "alone, only, unique",<ref name="Bailly1981"/><ref name="Tabularium"/> and refers to the fact that a monophyletic group includes organisms consisting of ''all'' the descendants of a ''unique'' common ancestor.
Conversely, the term ''[[monophyly]]'', or ''monophyletic'', builds on the Ancient Greek prefix {{wikt-lang|grc|μόνος}} ({{grc-transl|μόνος}}), meaning "alone, only, unique",<ref name="Bailly1981"/><ref name="Tabularium"/> and refers to the fact that a monophyletic group includes organisms consisting of ''all'' the descendants of a ''unique'' common ancestor.
Line 31: Line 32:
These terms were developed during the debates of the 1960s and 1970s accompanying the rise of [[cladistics]].
These terms were developed during the debates of the 1960s and 1970s accompanying the rise of [[cladistics]].


Paraphyletic groupings are considered problematic by many taxonomists, as it is not possible to talk precisely about their phylogenetic relationships, their characteristic traits and literal extinction.<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=XcYSZTPkXTQC&pg=PA166 |title=The Symbolic Species Evolved |last1=Schilhab |first1=Theresa |last2=Stjernfelt |first2=Frederik |last3=Deacon |first3=Terrence |year=2012 |publisher=Springer |isbn=978-94-007-2335-1}}</ref><ref name="Villmoare-2018">{{Cite journal |last=Villmoare |first=Brian |date=2018 |title=Early ''Homo'' and the role of the genus in paleoanthropology |journal=American Journal of Physical Anthropology |volume=165 |pages=72–89 |doi=10.1002/ajpa.23387|pmid=29380889 |doi-access=free }}</ref> Related terms are [[Crown group#stem group|stem group]], [[chronospecies]], budding cladogenesis, anagenesis, or [[Evolutionary grade|'grade']] groupings. Paraphyletic groups are often relics from outdated hypotheses of phylogenic relationships from before the rise of cladistics.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Dominguez |first1=Eduardo |last2=Wheeler |first2=Quentin D. |date=1997 |title=Forum – Taxonomic Stability is Ignorance |journal=Cladistics |volume=13 |issue=4 |pages=367–372 |doi=10.1111/j.1096-0031.1997.tb00325.x|pmid=34911226 |s2cid=55540349 |doi-access=free }}</ref>
Paraphyletic groupings are considered problematic by many taxonomists, as it is not possible to talk precisely about their phylogenetic relationships, their characteristic traits and literal extinction.<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=XcYSZTPkXTQC&pg=PA166 |title=The Symbolic Species Evolved |last1=Schilhab |first1=Theresa |last2=Stjernfelt |first2=Frederik |last3=Deacon |first3=Terrence |year=2012 |publisher=Springer |isbn=978-94-007-2335-1}}</ref><ref name="Villmoare-2018">{{Cite journal |last=Villmoare |first=Brian |date=2018 |title=Early ''Homo'' and the role of the genus in paleoanthropology |journal=American Journal of Physical Anthropology |volume=165 |issue=S65 |pages=72–89 |doi=10.1002/ajpa.23387|pmid=29380889 |bibcode=2018AJPA..165S..72V |doi-access=free }}</ref> Related terms are [[Crown group#stem group|stem group]], [[chronospecies]], budding cladogenesis, anagenesis, or [[Evolutionary grade|'grade']] groupings. Paraphyletic groups are often relics from outdated hypotheses of phylogenic relationships from before the rise of cladistics.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Dominguez |first1=Eduardo |last2=Wheeler |first2=Quentin D. |date=1997 |title=Forum – Taxonomic Stability is Ignorance |journal=Cladistics |volume=13 |issue=4 |pages=367–372 |doi=10.1111/j.1096-0031.1997.tb00325.x|pmid=34911226 |s2cid=55540349 |doi-access=free }}</ref>


=== Examples ===
=== Examples ===
Line 72: Line 73:
| [[Reptile|Reptilia]] || [[Bird|Aves]] || [[Sauropsida]] || <ref name="tudge">{{RefTudgeVariety}}</ref>
| [[Reptile|Reptilia]] || [[Bird|Aves]] || [[Sauropsida]] || <ref name="tudge">{{RefTudgeVariety}}</ref>
|-
|-
| [[Lizard]]s || [[Snake|Serpentes]], [[Amphisbaenia]] || [[Squamata]] || <ref>{{cite journal |last1=Reeder |first1=Tod W. |last2=Townsend |first2=Ted M. |last3=Mulcahy |first3=Daniel G. |last4=Noonan |first4=Brice P. |last5=Wood |first5=Perry L. |last6=Sites |first6=Jack W. |last7=Wiens |first7=John J. |date=2015 |title=Integrated Analyses Resolve Conflicts over Squamate Reptile Phylogeny and Reveal Unexpected Placements for Fossil Taxa |journal=PLOS ONE |volume=10 |issue=3 |pages=e0118199 |bibcode=2015PLoSO..1018199R |doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0118199 |pmc=4372529 |pmid=25803280 |doi-access=free}}</ref>
| [[Lizard]]s || [[Snake|Serpentes]], [[Amphisbaenia]] || [[Squamata]] || <ref>{{cite journal |last1=Reeder |first1=Tod W. |last2=Townsend |first2=Ted M. |last3=Mulcahy |first3=Daniel G. |last4=Noonan |first4=Brice P. |last5=Wood |first5=Perry L. |last6=Sites |first6=Jack W. |last7=Wiens |first7=John J. |date=2015 |title=Integrated Analyses Resolve Conflicts over Squamate Reptile Phylogeny and Reveal Unexpected Placements for Fossil Taxa |journal=PLOS ONE |volume=10 |issue=3 |article-number=e0118199 |bibcode=2015PLoSO..1018199R |doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0118199 |pmc=4372529 |pmid=25803280 |doi-access=free}}</ref>
|-
|-
| [[Plagiaulacida]]ns || [[Cimolodonta]], [[Arginbaataridae]] || [[Multituberculata]] || <ref>{{cite journal |author1=Kielan-Jaworowska, Z. |author2=Hurum, J. |name-list-style=amp |year=2001 |title=Phylogeny and Systematics of Multituberculate Animals |url=http://doc.rero.ch/record/14775/files/PAL_E1903.pdf |journal=Palaeontology |volume=44 |issue=3 |pages=389–429 |bibcode=2001Palgy..44..389K |doi=10.1111/1475-4983.00185 |s2cid=83592270}}</ref>
| [[Plagiaulacida]]ns || [[Cimolodonta]], [[Arginbaataridae]] || [[Multituberculata]] || <ref>{{cite journal |author1=Kielan-Jaworowska, Z. |author2=Hurum, J. |name-list-style=amp |year=2001 |title=Phylogeny and Systematics of Multituberculate Animals |url=http://doc.rero.ch/record/14775/files/PAL_E1903.pdf |journal=Palaeontology |volume=44 |issue=3 |pages=389–429 |bibcode=2001Palgy..44..389K |doi=10.1111/1475-4983.00185 |s2cid=83592270}}</ref>
Line 100: Line 101:
| [[Moth]]s || [[Butterfly|Papilionoidea]] || [[Lepidoptera]] || <ref name="scoble">{{cite book |last=Scoble |first=M.J. |title=The Lepidoptera: form, function and diversity |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=1995 |location=Oxford |pages=404<!--is that length of book or a page ref?-->}}</ref>
| [[Moth]]s || [[Butterfly|Papilionoidea]] || [[Lepidoptera]] || <ref name="scoble">{{cite book |last=Scoble |first=M.J. |title=The Lepidoptera: form, function and diversity |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=1995 |location=Oxford |pages=404<!--is that length of book or a page ref?-->}}</ref>
|-
|-
| [[Jellyfish]] || various [[Hydrozoa|hydrozoans]] || [[Medusozoa]] || <ref name="Zou2012">{{Cite journal |last1=Zou |first1=H. |last2=Zhang |first2=J. |last3=Li |first3=W. |last4=Wu |first4=S. |last5=Wang |first5=G. |year=2012 |title=Mitochondrial Genome of the Freshwater Jellyfish Craspedacusta sowerbyi and Phylogenetics of Medusozoa |journal=PLOS ONE |volume=7 |issue=12 |pages=e51465 |bibcode=2012PLoSO...751465Z |doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0051465 |pmc=3519871 |pmid=23240028 |doi-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Marques |first=Antonio C. |author2=Allen G. Collins |date=March 2004 |title=Cladistic analysis of Medusozoa and cnidarian evolution |journal=Invertebrate Biology |volume=123 |pages=23–42 |doi=10.1111/j.1744-7410.2004.tb00139.x |number=1|bibcode=2004InvBi.123...23M }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |author1=Zapata |display-authors=etal |date=2015 |title=Phylogenomic analyses support traditional relationships within Cnidaria |journal=PLOS ONE |volume=10 |issue=10 |page=e0139068 |bibcode=2015PLoSO..1039068Z |doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0139068 |pmc=4605497 |pmid=26465609 |doi-access=free}}</ref>
| [[Jellyfish]] || various [[Hydrozoa|hydrozoans]] || [[Medusozoa]] || <ref name="Zou2012">{{Cite journal |last1=Zou |first1=H. |last2=Zhang |first2=J. |last3=Li |first3=W. |last4=Wu |first4=S. |last5=Wang |first5=G. |year=2012 |title=Mitochondrial Genome of the Freshwater Jellyfish Craspedacusta sowerbyi and Phylogenetics of Medusozoa |journal=PLOS ONE |volume=7 |issue=12 |article-number=e51465 |bibcode=2012PLoSO...751465Z |doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0051465 |pmc=3519871 |pmid=23240028 |doi-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Marques |first=Antonio C. |author2=Allen G. Collins |date=March 2004 |title=Cladistic analysis of Medusozoa and cnidarian evolution |journal=Invertebrate Biology |volume=123 |pages=23–42 |doi=10.1111/j.1744-7410.2004.tb00139.x |number=1|bibcode=2004InvBi.123...23M }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |author1=Zapata |display-authors=etal |date=2015 |title=Phylogenomic analyses support traditional relationships within Cnidaria |journal=PLOS ONE |volume=10 |issue=10 |article-number=e0139068 |bibcode=2015PLoSO..1039068Z |doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0139068 |pmc=4605497 |pmid=26465609 |doi-access=free}}</ref>
|-
|-
| [[Rotifer]]a || [[Acanthocephala]] || [[Syndermata]] || <ref>{{cite book |author1=Ruppert, Edward E. |url=https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780030259821 |title=Invertebrate zoology: a functional evolutionary approach |author2=Fox, Richard S. |author3=Barnes, Robert D. |publisher=[[Cengage|Thomson-Brooks/Cole]] |year=2004 |isbn=0-03-025982-7 |edition=7th |place=Belmont, CA |pages=788ff. – see particularly p. 804 |chapter=23 GNATHIFERA |lccn=2003107287 |oclc=752875516 |url-access=registration}}</ref><ref name="shimek">{{cite web |author=Shimek, Ronald |date=January 2006 |title=Nano-Animals, Part I: Rotifers |url=http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2006-01/rs/index.php |access-date=27 July 2008 |publisher=Reefkeeping.com}}</ref>
| [[Rotifer]]a || [[Acanthocephala]] || [[Syndermata]] || <ref>{{cite book |author1=Ruppert, Edward E. |url=https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780030259821 |title=Invertebrate zoology: a functional evolutionary approach |author2=Fox, Richard S. |author3=Barnes, Robert D. |publisher=[[Cengage|Thomson-Brooks/Cole]] |year=2004 |isbn=0-03-025982-7 |edition=7th |place=Belmont, CA |pages=788ff. – see particularly p. 804 |chapter=23 GNATHIFERA |lccn=2003107287 |oclc=752875516 |url-access=registration}}</ref><ref name="shimek">{{cite web |author=Shimek, Ronald |date=January 2006 |title=Nano-Animals, Part I: Rotifers |url=http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2006-01/rs/index.php |access-date=27 July 2008 |publisher=Reefkeeping.com}}</ref>
|-
|-
| [[Monkey]]s || [[Hominoidea]]
| [[Monkey]]s || [[Hominoidea]]
|| [[Simiiformes]] ||<ref>{{cite AV media |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4A-dMqEbSk8 |title=Turns out we DID come from monkeys! |date=2010-01-16 |last=AronRa |access-date=2018-11-12}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Early Primate Evolution: The First Primates |url=http://anthro.palomar.edu/earlyprimates/early_2.htm |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180110174441/https://www2.palomar.edu/anthro/earlyprimates/early_2.htm |archive-date=10 January 2018 |access-date=2017-08-12 |website=anthro.palomar.edu}}</ref>
|| [[Simiiformes]] ||<ref>{{cite AV media |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4A-dMqEbSk8 |title=Turns out we DID come from monkeys! |date=2010-01-16 |last=AronRa |access-date=2018-11-12}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Early Primate Evolution: The First Primates |url=http://anthro.palomar.edu/earlyprimates/early_2.htm |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180110174441/https://www2.palomar.edu/anthro/earlyprimates/early_2.htm |archive-date=10 January 2018 |access-date=2017-08-12 |website=anthro.palomar.edu}}</ref>
|-
|-
|[[Antelope]]s
|[[Antelope]]s
Line 119: Line 120:
[[Species]] have a special status in systematics as being an observable feature of nature itself and as the basic unit of classification.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Queiroz |first1=Kevin |last2=Donoghue |first2=Michael J. |title=Phylogenetic Systematics and the Species Problem |journal=Cladistics |date=December 1988 |volume=4 |issue=4 |pages=317–338 |doi= 10.1111/j.1096-0031.1988.tb00518.x |pmid=34949064 |s2cid=40799805 }}</ref> Some articulations of the [[Species#Phylogenetic or cladistic species|phylogenetic species concept]] require species to be monophyletic, but paraphyletic species are common in nature, to the extent that they do not have a single common ancestor. Indeed, for sexually reproducing taxa, no species has a "single common ancestor" organism. Paraphyly is common in [[speciation]], whereby a mother species (a [[paraspecies]]) gives rise to a daughter species without itself becoming extinct.<ref name= "AlbertReis2011">{{cite book |first1=James S.| last1= Albert | first2= Roberto E.| last2= Reis |title=Historical Biogeography of Neotropical Freshwater Fishes |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=_Suu7a-ERdMC&pg=PA308 |access-date=28 June 2011 |date=8 March 2011 |publisher= University of California Press |page=308 |isbn=978-0-520-26868-5| via= Google Books}}</ref> Research indicates as many as 20 percent of all animal species and between 20 and 50 percent of plant species are paraphyletic.<ref>{{cite journal |last1= Ross |first1= Howard A. |title= The incidence of species-level paraphyly in animals: A re-assessment |journal=Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution |date= July 2014 |volume=76 |pages=10–17 |doi=10.1016/j.ympev.2014.02.021 |pmid=24583289|bibcode= 2014MolPE..76...10R }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Crisp |first1=M.D. |last2=Chandler |first2=G.T. |title=Paraphyletic species |journal= [[Telopea (journal)|Telopea]] |date=1 July 1996 |volume= 6 |issue=4 |pages=813–844 |doi=10.7751/telopea19963037 |url= http://plantnet.rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au/emuwebnswlive/objects/common/webmedia.php?irn=75865&reftable=ebibliography |access-date=22 January 2015|doi-access=free |bibcode=1996Telop...6..813C }}</ref> Accounting for these facts, some taxonomists argue that paraphyly is a trait of nature that should be acknowledged at higher taxonomic levels.<ref>{{cite book |title=Framework for Post-Phylogenetic Systematics |last=Zander |first=Richard  |year=2013 |publisher=Zetetic Publications, Amazon CreateSpace |location=St. Louis |url= https://www.academia.edu/9137481 }}</ref><ref name="aub15">{{cite journal | last1=Aubert | first1=D. | year=2015 | title=A formal analysis of phylogenetic terminology: Towards a reconsideration of the current paradigm in systematics | journal= [[Phytoneuron]] | volume=66 | pages=1–54 }}</ref>
[[Species]] have a special status in systematics as being an observable feature of nature itself and as the basic unit of classification.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Queiroz |first1=Kevin |last2=Donoghue |first2=Michael J. |title=Phylogenetic Systematics and the Species Problem |journal=Cladistics |date=December 1988 |volume=4 |issue=4 |pages=317–338 |doi= 10.1111/j.1096-0031.1988.tb00518.x |pmid=34949064 |s2cid=40799805 }}</ref> Some articulations of the [[Species#Phylogenetic or cladistic species|phylogenetic species concept]] require species to be monophyletic, but paraphyletic species are common in nature, to the extent that they do not have a single common ancestor. Indeed, for sexually reproducing taxa, no species has a "single common ancestor" organism. Paraphyly is common in [[speciation]], whereby a mother species (a [[paraspecies]]) gives rise to a daughter species without itself becoming extinct.<ref name= "AlbertReis2011">{{cite book |first1=James S.| last1= Albert | first2= Roberto E.| last2= Reis |title=Historical Biogeography of Neotropical Freshwater Fishes |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=_Suu7a-ERdMC&pg=PA308 |access-date=28 June 2011 |date=8 March 2011 |publisher= University of California Press |page=308 |isbn=978-0-520-26868-5| via= Google Books}}</ref> Research indicates as many as 20 percent of all animal species and between 20 and 50 percent of plant species are paraphyletic.<ref>{{cite journal |last1= Ross |first1= Howard A. |title= The incidence of species-level paraphyly in animals: A re-assessment |journal=Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution |date= July 2014 |volume=76 |pages=10–17 |doi=10.1016/j.ympev.2014.02.021 |pmid=24583289|bibcode= 2014MolPE..76...10R }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Crisp |first1=M.D. |last2=Chandler |first2=G.T. |title=Paraphyletic species |journal= [[Telopea (journal)|Telopea]] |date=1 July 1996 |volume= 6 |issue=4 |pages=813–844 |doi=10.7751/telopea19963037 |url= http://plantnet.rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au/emuwebnswlive/objects/common/webmedia.php?irn=75865&reftable=ebibliography |access-date=22 January 2015|doi-access=free |bibcode=1996Telop...6..813C }}</ref> Accounting for these facts, some taxonomists argue that paraphyly is a trait of nature that should be acknowledged at higher taxonomic levels.<ref>{{cite book |title=Framework for Post-Phylogenetic Systematics |last=Zander |first=Richard  |year=2013 |publisher=Zetetic Publications, Amazon CreateSpace |location=St. Louis |url= https://www.academia.edu/9137481 }}</ref><ref name="aub15">{{cite journal | last1=Aubert | first1=D. | year=2015 | title=A formal analysis of phylogenetic terminology: Towards a reconsideration of the current paradigm in systematics | journal= [[Phytoneuron]] | volume=66 | pages=1–54 }}</ref>


Cladists advocate a phylogenetic species concept <ref>{{cite journal| last1= Nixon| first1= Kevin C.| first2= Quentin D. |last2= Wheeler| title= An amplification of the phylogenetic species concept| journal= Cladistics |volume= 6| number= 3 |year= 1990| pages= 211–23| doi= 10.1111/j.1096-0031.1990.tb00541.x| s2cid= 84095773| doi-access= free}}</ref> that does not consider species to exhibit the properties of monophyly or paraphyly, concepts under that perspective which apply only to groups of species.<ref>{{cite book| last1= Brower| first1= Andrew V. Z. |first2= Randall T.| last2= Schuh| year= 2021| title= Biological Systematics: principles and applications| edition= 3rd| publisher= Cornell University Press| place= Ithaca, New York| isbn= 978-1-5017-5277-3}}</ref> They consider Zander's extension of the "paraphyletic species" argument to higher taxa to represent a [[category error]]<ref>{{cite journal| last= Schmidt-Lebuhn| first= Alexander N. |title= Fallacies and false premises—a critical assessment of the arguments for the recognition of paraphyletic taxa in botany| journal= Cladistics |volume= 28| number= 2 |year= 2012| pages= 174–87| doi= 10.1111/j.1096-0031.2011.00367.x | pmid= 34861757 | s2cid= 83900580 | doi-access= free }}</ref>
Cladists advocate a phylogenetic species concept <ref>{{cite journal| last1= Nixon| first1= Kevin C.| first2= Quentin D. |last2= Wheeler| title= An amplification of the phylogenetic species concept| journal= Cladistics |volume= 6| number= 3 |year= 1990| pages= 211–23| doi= 10.1111/j.1096-0031.1990.tb00541.x| s2cid= 84095773| doi-access= free}}</ref> that does not consider species to exhibit the properties of monophyly or paraphyly, concepts under that perspective which apply only to groups of species.<ref>{{cite book| last1= Brower| first1= Andrew V. Z. |first2= Randall T.| last2= Schuh| year= 2021| title= Biological Systematics: principles and applications| edition= 3rd| publisher= Cornell University Press| place= Ithaca, New York| isbn= 978-1-5017-5277-3}}</ref> They consider Zander's extension of the "paraphyletic species" argument to higher taxa to represent a [[category error]].<ref>{{cite journal| last= Schmidt-Lebuhn| first= Alexander N. |title= Fallacies and false premises—a critical assessment of the arguments for the recognition of paraphyletic taxa in botany| journal= Cladistics |volume= 28| number= 2 |year= 2012| pages= 174–87| doi= 10.1111/j.1096-0031.2011.00367.x | pmid= 34861757 | s2cid= 83900580 | doi-access= free }}</ref>


=== Uses for paraphyletic groups ===
=== Uses for paraphyletic groups ===
Line 130: Line 131:


The term "[[evolutionary grade]]" is sometimes used for paraphyletic groups.<ref name="Ancestors_Tale">{{Cite book | first=Richard | last=Dawkins | author-link=Richard Dawkins | title=The Ancestor's Tale, A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Life | chapter=Mammal-like Reptiles | publisher=Houghton Mifflin | location=Boston| year=2004| isbn=978-0-618-00583-3 | title-link=The Ancestor's Tale }}</ref>
The term "[[evolutionary grade]]" is sometimes used for paraphyletic groups.<ref name="Ancestors_Tale">{{Cite book | first=Richard | last=Dawkins | author-link=Richard Dawkins | title=The Ancestor's Tale, A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Life | chapter=Mammal-like Reptiles | publisher=Houghton Mifflin | location=Boston| year=2004| isbn=978-0-618-00583-3 | title-link=The Ancestor's Tale }}</ref>
Moreover, 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 |pmid=31279710 |title=Diagnosis of mitogenome for robust phylogeny: A case of Cypriniformes fish group |journal=Gene |volume=713 |pages=143967 |year=2019 |last1=Parhi |first1=J. |author2=Tripathy, P.S. |author3=Priyadarshi, H. |author4=Mandal S.C. |author5=Pandey P.K. |s2cid=195828782 }}</ref>
Moreover, 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 |pmid=31279710 |title=Diagnosis of mitogenome for robust phylogeny: A case of Cypriniformes fish group |journal=Gene |volume=713 |article-number=143967 |year=2019 |last1=Parhi |first1=J. |author2=Tripathy, P.S. |author3=Priyadarshi, H. |author4=Mandal S.C. |author5=Pandey P.K. |s2cid=195828782 }}</ref>


== Linguistics ==
== Linguistics ==

Latest revision as of 03:11, 5 November 2025

Template:Short description Template:Use dmy dates Template:Not to be confused with

File:Clade-grade II.svg
In this phylogenetic tree, the green group is paraphyletic; it is composed of a common ancestor (the lowest green vertical stem) and some of its descendants, but it excludes the blue group (a monophyletic group) which diverged from the green group.

Paraphyly is a taxonomic term describing a grouping that consists of the grouping's last common ancestor and some but not all of its descendant lineages. The grouping is said to be paraphyletic with respect to the excluded subgroups. In contrast, a monophyletic grouping (a clade) includes a common ancestor and all of its descendants.

The terms are commonly used in phylogenetics (a subfield of biology) and in the tree model of historical linguistics. Paraphyletic groups are identified by a combination of synapomorphies and symplesiomorphies. If many subgroups are missing from the named group, it is said to be polyparaphyletic.

The term received currency during the debates of the 1960s and 1970s accompanying the rise of cladistics, having been coined by zoologist Willi Hennig to apply to well-known taxa like Reptilia (reptiles), which is paraphyletic with respect to birds. Reptilia contains the last common ancestor of reptiles and all descendants of that ancestor except for birds. Other commonly recognized paraphyletic groups include fish,[1] monkeys,[2] lizards,[3], wasps, and crustaceans.

Etymology

The term paraphyly, or paraphyletic, derives from the two Ancient Greek words Template:Wikt-lang (Template:Grc-transl), meaning "beside, near", and Template:Wikt-lang (Template:Grc-transl), meaning "genus, species",[4][5] and refers to the situation in which one or several monophyletic subgroups of organisms (e.g., genera, species) are left apart from all other descendants of a unique common ancestor.

Conversely, the term monophyly, or monophyletic, builds on the Ancient Greek prefix Template:Wikt-lang (Template:Grc-transl), meaning "alone, only, unique",[4][5] and refers to the fact that a monophyletic group includes organisms consisting of all the descendants of a unique common ancestor.

By comparison, the term polyphyly, or polyphyletic, uses 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.

Phylogenetics

File:Monophyly, paraphyly, polyphyly.svg
Cladogram of the primates, showing a monophyly (the simians, in yellow), a paraphyly (the prosimians, in blue, including the red patch), and a polyphyly (the night-active primates, the lorises and the tarsiers, in red). "Monkeys" too are paraphyletic if apes and humans are excluded.

In cladistics

Script error: No such module "labelled list hatnote".

Groups that include all the descendants of a common ancestor are said to be monophyletic. A paraphyletic group is a monophyletic group from which one or more subsidiary clades (monophyletic groups) are excluded to form a separate group. Philosopher of science Marc Ereshefsky has argued that paraphyletic taxa are the result of anagenesis in the excluded group or groups.[6] A cladistic approach normally does not grant paraphyletic assemblages the status of "groups", nor does it reify them with explanations, as in cladistics they are not seen as the actual products of evolutionary events.[7]

A group whose identifying features evolved convergently in two or more lineages is polyphyletic (Greek πολύς [polys], "many"). More broadly, any taxon that is not paraphyletic or monophyletic can be called polyphyletic. Empirically, the distinction between polyphyletic groups and paraphyletic groups is rather arbitrary, since the character states of common ancestors are inferences, not observations.Script error: No such module "Unsubst".

These terms were developed during the debates of the 1960s and 1970s accompanying the rise of cladistics.

Paraphyletic groupings are considered problematic by many taxonomists, as it is not possible to talk precisely about their phylogenetic relationships, their characteristic traits and literal extinction.[8][9] Related terms are stem group, chronospecies, budding cladogenesis, anagenesis, or 'grade' groupings. Paraphyletic groups are often relics from outdated hypotheses of phylogenic relationships from before the rise of cladistics.[10]

Examples

File:Wasps are Paraphyletic.svg
Wasps are paraphyletic, consisting of the clade Apocrita without ants and bees, which are not usually considered to be wasps; the sawflies ("Symphyta") too are paraphyletic, as the Apocrita are nested inside the Symphytan clades.

The prokaryotes (single-celled life forms without cell nuclei) are a paraphyletic grouping, because they exclude the eukaryotes, a descendant group. Bacteria and Archaea are prokaryotes, but archaea and eukaryotes share a common ancestor that is not ancestral to the bacteria. The prokaryote/eukaryote distinction was proposed by Edouard Chatton in 1937[11] and was generally accepted after being adopted by Roger Stanier and C.B. van Niel in 1962. The botanical code (the ICBN, now the ICN) abandoned consideration of bacterial nomenclature in 1975; currently, prokaryotic nomenclature is regulated under the ICNB with a starting date of 1 January 1980 (in contrast to a 1753 start date under the ICBN/ICN).[12]

Among plants, dicotyledons (in the traditional sense) are paraphyletic because the group excludes monocotyledons. "Dicotyledon" has not been used as a botanic classification for decades, but is allowed as a synonym of Magnoliopsida.[note 1] Phylogenetic analysis indicates that the monocots are a development from a dicot ancestor. Excluding monocots from the dicots makes the latter a paraphyletic group.[13]

Among animals, several familiar groups are not, in fact, clades. The order Artiodactyla (even-toed ungulates) as traditionally defined is paraphyletic because it excludes Cetaceans (whales, dolphins, etc.). Under the ranks of the ICZN Code, the two taxa are separate orders. Molecular studies, however, have shown that the Cetacea descend from artiodactyl ancestors, although the precise phylogeny within the order remains uncertain. Without the Cetaceans the Artiodactyls are paraphyletic.[14] The class Reptilia is paraphyletic because it excludes birds (class Aves). Under a traditional classification, these two taxa are separate classes. However birds are sister taxon to a group of dinosaurs (part of Diapsida), both of which are "reptiles".[15]

Osteichthyes, bony fish, are paraphyletic when circumscribed to include only Actinopterygii (ray-finned fish) and Sarcopterygii (lungfish, etc.), and to exclude tetrapods; more recently, Osteichthyes is treated as a clade, including the tetrapods.[16][17]

The "wasps" are paraphyletic, consisting of the narrow-waisted Apocrita without the ants and bees.[18] The sawflies (Symphyta) are similarly paraphyletic, forming all of the Hymenoptera except for the Apocrita, a clade deep within the sawfly tree.[16] Crustaceans are not a clade because the Hexapoda (insects) are excluded. The modern clade that spans all of them is the Pancrustacea.[19][20][21]

One of the goals of modern taxonomy over the past fifty years has been to eliminate paraphyletic taxa from formal classifications.[22][23] Below is a partial list of obsolete taxa and informal groups that have been found to be paraphyletic.

Paraphyletic group Excluded clades Corresponding monophyletic taxon References and notes
Prokaryota Eukaryota Cellular organisms [24]
Protista Animalia, Plantae, Fungi Eukaryota [25]
Chromista Archaeplastida, Provora Diaphoretickes [26]
Invertebrates Vertebrata Animalia [27]
Platyzoa Lophotrochozoa, Mesozoa Spiralia [28]
Fish Tetrapoda Vertebrata [29]
Reptilia Aves Sauropsida [30]
Lizards Serpentes, Amphisbaenia Squamata [31]
Plagiaulacidans Cimolodonta, Arginbaataridae Multituberculata [32]
Pelycosaurs Therapsida Synapsida [33]
Even-toed ungulates Cetacea Artiodactyla [14][34]
Archaeoceti Neoceti Cetacea [35]
Prosimii Simiiformes Primates [36]
Crustacea Hexapoda Pancrustacea [20][21][19]
Wasps Formicidae, Anthophila Apocrita [18]
Symphyta Apocrita Hymenoptera [16]
Parasitica Aculeata Apocrita [37]
Nautiloidea Ammonoidea, Coleoidea Cephalopoda [38]
Charophyta Embryophyta Streptophyta [39]
Dicotyledons Monocotyledons Angiospermae [13]
Moths Papilionoidea Lepidoptera [40]
Jellyfish various hydrozoans Medusozoa [41][42][43]
Rotifera Acanthocephala Syndermata [44][45]
Monkeys Hominoidea Simiiformes [46][47]
Antelopes Bovini, Caprini, Ovibovini Bovidae [48]

Paraphyly in species

Script error: No such module "Labelled list hatnote".

Species have a special status in systematics as being an observable feature of nature itself and as the basic unit of classification.[49] Some articulations of the phylogenetic species concept require species to be monophyletic, but paraphyletic species are common in nature, to the extent that they do not have a single common ancestor. Indeed, for sexually reproducing taxa, no species has a "single common ancestor" organism. Paraphyly is common in speciation, whereby a mother species (a paraspecies) gives rise to a daughter species without itself becoming extinct.[50] Research indicates as many as 20 percent of all animal species and between 20 and 50 percent of plant species are paraphyletic.[51][52] Accounting for these facts, some taxonomists argue that paraphyly is a trait of nature that should be acknowledged at higher taxonomic levels.[53][54]

Cladists advocate a phylogenetic species concept [55] that does not consider species to exhibit the properties of monophyly or paraphyly, concepts under that perspective which apply only to groups of species.[56] They consider Zander's extension of the "paraphyletic species" argument to higher taxa to represent a category error.[57]

Uses for paraphyletic groups

Script error: No such module "anchor".

When the appearance of significant traits has led a subclade on an evolutionary path very divergent from that of a more inclusive clade, it often makes sense to study the paraphyletic group that remains without considering the larger clade. For example, the Neogene evolution of the Artiodactyla (even-toed ungulates, like deer, cows, pigs and hippopotamuses - Cervidae, Bovidae, Suidae and Hippopotamidae, the families that contain these various artiodactyls, are all monophyletic groups) has taken place in environments so different from that of the Cetacea (whales, dolphins, and porpoises) that the Artiodactyla are often studied in isolation even though the cetaceans are a descendant group. The prokaryote group is another example; it is paraphyletic because it is composed of two Domains (Eubacteria and Archaea) and excludes (the eukaryotes). It is very useful because it has a clearly defined and significant distinction (absence of a cell nucleus, a plesiomorphy) from its excluded descendants.Script error: No such module "Unsubst".

Also, some systematists recognize paraphyletic groups as being involved in evolutionary transitions, the development of the first tetrapods from their ancestors for example. Any name given to these hypothetical ancestors to distinguish them from tetrapods—"fish", for example—necessarily picks out a paraphyletic group, because the descendant tetrapods are not included.[58] Other systematists consider reification of paraphyletic groups to obscure inferred patterns of evolutionary history.[59]

The term "evolutionary grade" is sometimes used for paraphyletic groups.[60] Moreover, the concepts of monophyly, paraphyly, and polyphyly have been used in deducing key genes for barcoding of diverse group of species.[61]

Linguistics

Script error: No such module "Labelled list hatnote".

The concept of paraphyly has also been applied to historical linguistics, where the methods of cladistics have found some utility in comparing languages. For instance, the Formosan languages form a paraphyletic group of the Austronesian languages because they consist of the nine branches of the Austronesian family that are not Malayo-Polynesian and are restricted to the island of Taiwan.[62]

See also

Explanatory notes

Template:Reflist

References

Template:Reflist

Bibliography

External links

Template:Sister project

Script error: No such module "Navbox".

  1. Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  2. Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  3. Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  4. a b c Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  5. a b c Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  6. Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  7. Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".Template:Pn
  8. Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  9. Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  10. Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  11. Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  12. Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  13. a b Script error: No such module "Footnotes".. "It is now thought that the possession of two cotyledons is an ancestral feature for the taxa of the flowering plants and not an apomorphy for any group within. The 'dicots' ... are paraphyletic ...."
  14. a b Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  15. Romer, A. S. & Parsons, T. S. (1985): The Vertebrate Body. (6th ed.) Saunders, Philadelphia.
  16. a b c Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  17. Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  18. a b Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  19. a b Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  20. a b Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  21. a b Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  22. Schuh, Randall T. "The Linnaean system and its 250-year persistence." The Botanical Review 69, no. 1 (2003): 59.
  23. Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  24. Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  25. Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  26. Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  27. Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  28. Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  29. Tree of life web project – Chordates Template:Webarchive.
  30. Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  31. Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  32. Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  33. Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  34. Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  35. Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  36. Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  37. Parasitic Hymenoptera (Parasitica). RL Zuparko, Encyclopedia of Entomology, 2004
  38. Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  39. Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  40. Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  41. Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  42. Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  43. Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  44. Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  45. Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  46. Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  47. Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  48. Script error: No such module "citation/CS1"., p. 699.
  49. Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  50. Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  51. Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  52. Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  53. Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  54. Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  55. Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  56. Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  57. Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  58. Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  59. Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  60. Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  61. Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  62. Greenhill, Simon J. and Russell D. Gray. (2009.) "Austronesian Language and Phylogenies: Myths and Misconceptions About Bayesian Computational Methods", in Austronesian Historical Linguistics and Culture History: a Festschrift for Robert Blust, edited by Alexander Adelaar and Andrew Pawley. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, The Australian National University.


Cite error: <ref> tags exist for a group named "note", but no corresponding <references group="note"/> tag was found