The role of paleontological data in testing homology by congruence

• Autorzy: Rieppel O
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

With homology being defined as shared similarity due to common ancestry, any initial perception of similarity (or relative invariance) among organisms may be treated as a conjecture of homology to be tested by congruence. The phylogenetic information content is therefore not with the character itself, but lies in the relation of any one character to all others known. The "principle of total evidence" thus emerges as a logical corollary of the distinction of homology and homoplasy, the most severe test of homology involving all known characters in the search for the globally most congruent pattern. In a study combining fossil and extant organisms, however, the issue of missing characters raises the question of implicit a priori weighting, because some sources for characters (soft anatomy, molecular, physiological, behavioral) remain unknown in fossils. The issue of missing data in fossils requires further study before the potential impact of fossils on a classification based on extant organisms can be properly assessed.

PL

Jeśli zdefiniuje się homologię jako podobieństwo wynikające ze wspólnego pochodzenia, każde zauważalne podobieństwo może być traktowane jako domniemanie homologii, które można poddać testowi zgodności. Przebieg filogenezy wywodzi się nie z samej cechy lecz z jej stosunku do innych znanych cech. Zasada pełności danych pojawia się jako logiczna konsekwencja rozróżnienia homologii i homoplazji. Test homologii obejmujący wszystkie znane cechy, zmierzający do odnalezienia najbardziej zgodnego ich rozkładu, jest więc testem najostrzejszym. Kiedy analizie poddaje się zbiory danych o kopalnych i dzisiejszych organizmach pojawia się problem nieznanych cech (nie zachowanych w stanie kopalnym) pociągający za sobą konieczność wstępnego wartościowania cech.

Słowa kluczowe

PL

ptaki; ssaki; skamienialosci; filogeneza; paleontologia; homologia

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Acta Palaeontologica Polonica
• Rocznik: 1993
• Tom: 38
• Numer: 3-4
• Opis fizyczny: s.295-302,bibliogr.

Twórcy

autor

Rieppel O

• Field Museum of Natural History, Roosevelt Road at Lake Shore Drive, Chicago, Illinois 60605-2496, USA

Bibliografia

• Benton, M.J. 1990. Phylogeny of the major tetrapod groups: morphological data and divergence dates. Journal of Molecular Evolution 30, 409-424.
• Bishop, M.J. & Friday, A.E. 1987. Tetrapod relationships: the molecular evidence. In: C. Patterson (ed.) Molecules and Morphology in Evolution: Conflict or Compromise, 123-139. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
• Brady, R.H. 1985. On the independence of systematics. Cladistics 1, 113-126.
• Darwin, C. 1859. On The Origin of Species. 703 pp. John Murray, London.
• De Pinna, M.C.C. 1991. Concepts and tests of homology in the cladistic paradigm, Cladistics 7, 367-394.
• Gardiner, B.G. 1982. Tetrapod classification. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 74, 207-323.
• Gauthier, J., Kluge, A.G., & Rowe, T. 1988a. Amniote phylogeny and the importance of fossils. Cladistics 4, 105-209.
• Gauthier, J., Kluge, A.G., & Rowe, T. 1988b. The early evolution of the Amniota. In: M.J. Benton (ed.) The Phylogeny and Classification of the Tetrapods, 1: Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds, 103-155. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
• Hecht, M.K. & Edwards, J.L. 1977. The methodology of phylogenetic inference above the species level. In: M.K. Hecht, P.C. Goody, & B.M. Hecht (eds) Major Patterns in Vertebrate Evolution, 3-51. Plenum Press, New York.
• Hedges, S.B., Moberg K.D., & Maxson, L.R. 1990. Tetrapod phylogeny inferred from 18S and 28S ribosomal RNA sequences and a review of the evidence for amniote relationships. Molecular Biology and Evolution 7, 607-633.
• Hennig, W. 1966. Phylogenetic Systematics. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.
• Hillis, D.M. & Dixon, M.T. 1989. Vertebrate Phylogeny: evidence from 28S ribosomal DNA sequences. In: B. Fernholm, K. Bremer, & H. Jornvall (eds) The Hierarchy of Life; Nobel Symposium 70, 355-367. Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam.
• Hoffman, A. 1989. Arguments on Evolution. A Paleontologist’s Perspective. 274 pp. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
• Kluge, A.G. 1989. A concern for evidence and a phylogenetic hypothesis of relationships among Epicrates (Boidae, Serpentes). Systematic Zoology 38, 315-328.
• Løvtrup, P.S. 1977. The Phylogeny of Vertebrata. 330 pp. John Wiley and Sons, London.
• Løvtrup, 1985. On the classification of the taxon Tetrapoda. Systematic Zoology 34, 463-470.
• Owen, R. 1866. On the Anatomy of Vertebrates. Longmans Green & Co., London.
• Panchen, A.L. 1992. Classification, Evolution and the Nature of Biology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
• Patterson, C. 1981. Significance of fossils in determining evolutionary relationships. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 12, 195-223.
• Patterson, C. 1982. Morphological characters and homology. In: K.A. Joysey & A.E. Friday (eds) Problems in Phylogenetic Reconstruction, 21-74. Academic Press, London.
• Patterson, C. & Rosen, D. 1977. Review of the ichthyodectiform and other Mesozoic fishes and the theory and practice of classifying fossils. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 158, 81-172.
• Platnick, N.I., Griswold C.E., & Coddington, J.A. 1991. On missing entries in cladistic analysis. Cladistics 7, 337-343.
• Rieppel, O. 1987. Pattern and process: the early classification of snakes. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 31, 405-420.
• Rieppel, O. 1992. Homology and logical fallacy. Journal of evolutionary Biology 5, 701-715.
• Rudwick, M.J.S. 1972. The Meaning of Fossils. Episodes in the History of Paleontology. 287 pp. Macdonald, London.