The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Populations, Genetic Variation, and the Delimitation of Phylogenetic Species
Abstract
Systematists should distinguish between cladistic analysis, i.e., a numerical procedure, and phylogenetic analysis, i.e., the reconstruction of hierarchic descent relationships. Modern cladistic analysis uses parsimony to construct hierarchic arrangements (trees) of terminal units (terminals) that have been scored for a series of attributes. The interpretation of cladistic relationships as representative of phylogenetic relationships requires two conditions, both of which were identified by Hennig (1966, Phylogenetic systematics, Univ. Illinois Press, Urbana). First, descent relationships among the terminals must be hierarchic; that is, all terminals must have been generated by the subdivision or replication of previously existing ancestors. This is a necessary condition for phylogenetic analysis, rather than an empirical discovery of it, because the results of cladistic analysis are always hierarchically structured (however poorly resolved). Because resolution of a cladistic hierarchy does not demonstrate that a hierarchic descent system underlies the character distribution pattern it reflects, additional information is necessary, in any given case, to determine that phylogenetic analysis is appropriate. Second, to have congruence between an observable attribute hierarchy and the descent hierarchy that is to be inferred, the attribute must have been transmitted from an ancestor to all of its descendants, either in its original state or in a modified state. Both conditions are met by asexual organisms and by nonrecombining genetic elements (e.g., the chloroplast and mitochondrial genomes) but not by individual sexually reproducing organisms that bear such genetic elements. Populations of sexually reproducing organisms can meet the first condition (i.e., hierarchic descent) when new populations are founded by the division of previously existing populations and individuals do not disperse among existing populations. When the first condition is met, the second also is met for genetically fixed attributes of the populations, because populations descended from an ancestral population that was fixed for an attribute also will be fixed for that attribute (in original or modified state). In contrast, attributes that are not fixed in a population may not occur in all or any descendant populations, even if descent relationships among populations are hierarchic. The occurrence of a unique fixed character combination in an extended genealogical population (phylogenetic species sensu Nixon and Wheeler, 1990, Cladistics 6:211-223) is evidence that this population has diverged from other such populations and thus that descent relationships among such populations are hierarchic. The fixed characters of phylogenetic species therefore constitute evidence that a hierarchic descent system exists and provide the means for analyzing phylogenetic relationships among these species. Phylogenetic species can be delimited by a procedure (population aggregation analysis) that involves a search for fixed differences among local populations, followed by successive rounds of aggregation of populations and previously aggregated population groups that are not distinct from each other
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Sequence-Based Species Delimitation for the DNA Taxonomy of Undescribed Insects
Pons, J., Barraclough, T. G., Gomez-Zurita, J., Cardoso, A., Duran, D. P., Hazell, S., Kamoun, S., Sumlin, W. D., & Vogler, A. P. (2006) · Systematic Biology · doi:10.1080/10635150600852011 · Cited by 2,775
The Impact of Species Concept on Biodiversity Studies
Agapow, P., Bininda‐Emonds, O. R. P., Crandall, K. A., Gittleman, J. L., Mace, G. M., Marshall, J. C., & Purvis, A. (2004) · The Quarterly Review of Biology · doi:10.1086/383542 · Cited by 677
Phylogenetic Incongruence: Window into Genome History and Molecular Evolution
Wendel, J. F., & Doyle, J. J. (1998) · Molecular Systematics of Plants II · doi:10.1007/978-1-4615-5419-6_10 · Cited by 649
GRANT, T., FROST, D. R., CALDWELL, J. P., GAGLIARDO, R., HADDAD, C. F. B., KOK, P. J. R., MEANS, D. B., NOONAN, B. P., SCHARGEL, W. E., & WHEELER, W. C. (2006) · Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History · doi:10.1206/0003-0090(2006)299[1:psodfa]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 578
The seven deadly sins of DNA barcoding
Collins, R. A., & Cruickshank, R. H. (2013) · Molecular Ecology Resources · doi:10.1111/1755-0998.12046 · Cited by 560
Autopolyploidy in angiosperms: Have we grossly underestimated the number of species?
(2007) · Taxon · doi:10.2307/25065732 · Cited by 452
Integrative taxonomy, or iterative taxonomy?
YEATES, D. K., SEAGO, A., NELSON, L., CAMERON, S. L., JOSEPH, L., & TRUEMAN, J. W. H. (2011) · Systematic Entomology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-3113.2010.00558.x · Cited by 366
Review and interpretation of trends in DNA barcoding
DeSalle, R., & Goldstein, P. (2019) · Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.3389/fevo.2019.00302 · Cited by 338
Multi‐locus species delimitation in closely related animals and fungi: one marker is not enough
DUPUIS, J. R., ROE, A. D., & SPERLING, F. A. H. (2012) · Molecular Ecology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-294x.2012.05642.x · Cited by 338
(1994) · Molecular Biology and Evolution · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a040121 · Cited by 257
Colletotrichum: lifestyles, biology, morpho-species, species complexes and accepted species
Jayawardena, R. (2021) · Mycosphere · doi:10.5943/mycosphere/12/1/7 · Cited by 208
caos software for use in character‐based DNA barcoding
SARKAR, I. N., PLANET, P. J., & DESALLE, R. (2008) · Molecular Ecology Resources · doi:10.1111/j.1755-0998.2008.02235.x · Cited by 169
Gaubert, P., & Antunes, A. (2005) · Journal of Mammalogy · doi:10.1644/1545-1542(2005)86[1068:attsot]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 83
Lawley, J. W., Gamero-Mora, E., Maronna, M. M., Chiaverano, L. M., Stampar, S. N., Hopcroft, R. R., Collins, A. G., & Morandini, A. C. (2021) · PeerJ · doi:10.7717/peerj.11954 · Cited by 71
Metadata
- Authors
- Davis, J. I., & Nixon, K. C.
- Venue
- Systematic Biology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1992-12-01
- Volume
- 41
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 421-435
- ISSN
- 1063-5157 (ISSN-L)
- 1076-836X
- OpenAlex
- W1963904211
- Cited by
- 681
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 7.61
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.