Probably the most common line one can read in phylogenetic papers scratching at the surface of evolution is "species xxx is not monophyletic" or "supports species yyy as monophyletic". While appearing to be trivial, clade = monophylum, such statements are often naive, too often incomprehensive or, occasionally, just wrong. A clarification.
May the bridges I burned today light the way to those I'll burn tomorrow – A blog for lost scientists and curious non-scientists.
Labels
#FightTheFog
(19)
ancestors
(3)
animals
(3)
artwork
(9)
Austria
(2)
bad science
(11)
Beall's legacy
(7)
bias
(4)
biogeography
(5)
branch support
(4)
Bundestagswahl
(9)
comment
(19)
curiosities
(2)
data links
(3)
European
(10)
evolution
(1)
France
(9)
free science
(5)
funny things
(3)
Germany
(12)
how-to-analyse
(10)
in Deutsch
(32)
infographics
(35)
introduction
(1)
Ireland
(1)
Köppen-Geiger
(3)
Landtagswahlen
(10)
languages
(5)
lost science
(3)
not science
(8)
oddities
(14)
open access
(1)
open data
(3)
palaeontology
(13)
peer review
(10)
people
(1)
Philosophisches
(8)
phylo-networks
(16)
plants
(23)
politics
(34)
pollen
(4)
public interest
(21)
satire
(10)
scam
(5)
science-related
(21)
Sweden
(4)
systematics
(3)
terminology
(5)
tips
(27)
travelling
(2)
USA
(18)
Wahl-O-Mat
(12)
Translate
Showing posts with label terminology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label terminology. Show all posts
Monophyletic species
Cladistics vs Phylogenetics: What's the difference?
While working for a 2-piece post on the Genealogical World of Networks (A bit of heresy: networks for matrices used in Cladistics studies), I stepped over a threat on ResearchGate, where someone asked this. I browsed through the answers, and felt obliged to answer as well.
What is an angiosperm? Part 2. A(nother) case for Haeckelian phylogenetic (“evolutionary”) classification.
The “age of angiosperms” is still a matter of debate. But little discussion revolves around a more fundamental question. What is an angiosperm? The answer is trivial, from a modern-day perspective. A flowering plant. In Part 1, I introduced the basic classification options to define angiosperms: branch-based (possible) or node-based (many issues) cladistic and Hennigian or Haeckelian phylogenetic classifications. In the second part, I will show that the trivial definition – a flowering plant – is also the only useful definition when going back into Earth’s past. And as consequence, we need the one or other paraphyletic taxon.
What is an angiosperm? Part 1: The difference between cladistic and phylogenetic classification
The “age of angiosperms” is still a matter of debate. But little discussion revolves around a more fundamental question. What is an angiosperm? The answer is trivial, from a modern-day perspective. A flowering plant. But when it comes to dated trees and phylogenetics, we clash with semantics and non-congruent philosophical frameworks. Because then it's not necessarily about producing a flower, but pure concepts.
Subtropical ⊊ warm temperate
In this post, I will give an introduction into the main climate zone concepts, which are too often confused in non-climatic literature.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)