Book contents
- The Future of Phylogenetic Systematics: The Legacy of Willi Hennig
- The Systematics Association
- The Future of Phylogenetic Systematics
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Introduction
- 1 Mission impossible: the childhood and youth of Willi Hennig
- 2 Willi Hennig: a shy man behind a scientific revolution
- 3 Willi Hennig’s legacy in the Nordic countries
- 4 Hennigian systematics in France, a historical approach with glimpses of sociology
- 5 Are we all cladists?
- 6 How much of Hennig is in present day cladistics?
- 7 The evolution of Willi Hennig’s phylogenetic considerations
- 8 What we all learned from Hennig
- 9 Semaphoronts: the elements of biological systematics
- 10 Why should cladograms be dichotomous?
- 11 Hennig’s auxiliary principle and reciprocal illumination revisited
- 12 Dispersalism and neodispersalism
- 13 Molecular data in systematics: a promise fulfilled, a future beckoning
- 14 Hennig, Løvtrup, evolution and biology
- 15 Willi Hennig as philosopher
- 16 Hennig and hierarchies
- 17 Chain, tree, and network: the development of phylogenetic systematics in the context of genealogical visualization and information graphics
- 18 The relational view of phylogenetic hypotheses and what it tells us on the phylogeny/classification relation problem
- 19 This struggle for survival: systematic biology and institutional leadership
- Index
- References
18 - The relational view of phylogenetic hypotheses and what it tells us on the phylogeny/classification relation problem
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 July 2016
Book contents
- The Future of Phylogenetic Systematics: The Legacy of Willi Hennig
- The Systematics Association
- The Future of Phylogenetic Systematics
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Introduction
- 1 Mission impossible: the childhood and youth of Willi Hennig
- 2 Willi Hennig: a shy man behind a scientific revolution
- 3 Willi Hennig’s legacy in the Nordic countries
- 4 Hennigian systematics in France, a historical approach with glimpses of sociology
- 5 Are we all cladists?
- 6 How much of Hennig is in present day cladistics?
- 7 The evolution of Willi Hennig’s phylogenetic considerations
- 8 What we all learned from Hennig
- 9 Semaphoronts: the elements of biological systematics
- 10 Why should cladograms be dichotomous?
- 11 Hennig’s auxiliary principle and reciprocal illumination revisited
- 12 Dispersalism and neodispersalism
- 13 Molecular data in systematics: a promise fulfilled, a future beckoning
- 14 Hennig, Løvtrup, evolution and biology
- 15 Willi Hennig as philosopher
- 16 Hennig and hierarchies
- 17 Chain, tree, and network: the development of phylogenetic systematics in the context of genealogical visualization and information graphics
- 18 The relational view of phylogenetic hypotheses and what it tells us on the phylogeny/classification relation problem
- 19 This struggle for survival: systematic biology and institutional leadership
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Future of Phylogenetic SystematicsThe Legacy of Willi Hennig, pp. 431 - 468Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2016
References
Ashlock, P.D. (1979). An evolutionary systematist’s view of classification. Systematic Zoology, 28, 441–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bandelt, H-J. and Dress, A. (1986). Reconstructing the shape of a tree from observed dissimilarity data. Advances in Applied Mathematics, 7, 309–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buck, R.C. and Hull, D.L. (1966). The logical structure of the Linnaean hierarchy. Systematic Zoology, 15, 97–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colonius, H. and Schulze, H.H. (1981). Tree structures for proximity data. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 34, 167–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davey, B.A. and Priestley, H.A. (2002). Introduction to Lattices and Order, 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dayrat, B. (2005). Ancestor–descendant relationship and the reconstruction of the Tree of Life. Paleobiology, 31, 347–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobson, A.J. (1974). Unrooted trees for numerical taxonomy. Journal of Applied Probability, 11, 32–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Estabrook, G.F. (1997). Ancestor–descendant relations and incompatible data. In Mathematical Hierarchies and Biology, ed. Mirkin, B., McMorris, F.R., Robert, F.S. and Rzhetsky, A.. DIMACS series in discrete mathematics and theoretical computer sciences, 37, 1–28. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.Google Scholar
Farris, J.S. (1979). The information content of the phylogenetic system. Systematic Zoology, 28, 483–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farris, J.S., Kluge, A.G. and Eckardt, M.J. (1970). A numerical approach to phylogenetic systematics. Systematic Zoology, 19, 172—189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hennig, W. (1965). Phylogenetic systematics. Annual Review of Entomology, 10, 97–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hennig, W. (1966). Phylogenetic Systematics. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Hennig, W. (1975). “Cladistic analysis or cladistic classification?” A reply to Ernst Mayr. Systematic Zoology, 24, 244–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hull, D.L. (1970). Contemporaries systematic philosophies. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 1, 19–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hull, D.L. (1986). Les fondements philosophiques de la classification biologique. In L’Ordre et la Diversité du Vivant, ed. P. Tassy. Paris: Fayard, pp. 161–203.Google Scholar
Hull, D.L. (2001). The role of theories in biological systematics. Studies in History and Philosophy of Sciences Part C: Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 32, 221–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jardine, N. (1969). A logical basis for biological classification. Systematic Zoology, 18, 37–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kluge, A.G. (2002). Distinguishing “or” from “and” and the case for historical identification. Cladistics, 18, 585–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lecointre, G. and Le Guyader, H. (2001). Classification phylogénétique du vivant, 1st edition. Paris: Belin.Google Scholar
Løvtrup, S. (1988). La systématique et l’évolution de Lamarck aux théoriciens modernes. Biosystema, 3. Paris: Société Française de Systématique.Google Scholar
Matile, L., Tassy, P. and Goujet, D. (2004). Introduction à la systématique zoologique: concepts, principes, méthodes, 2nd edition. Biosystema, 1. Paris: Société Française de Systématique.Google Scholar
Mayr, E. (1974). Cladistic analysis or cladistic classification? Zeitschrift fuer Zoologische Systematik und Evolutionsforschung, 12, 94–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayr, E. (1981). Biological classification: toward a synthesis of opposite methodologies. Science, 214, 510–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayr, E. (1986). La systématique évolutionniste et les quatre étapes du processus de classification. In L’Ordre et la Diversité du Vivant, ed. P. Tassy. Paris: Fayard, , pp. 145–160.Google Scholar
McMorris, F.R. and Powers, R.C. (2003). The Arrovian Program from weak orders to hierarchical and tree-like relations. In Bioconsensus, ed. Janowitz, M.F., Lapointe, F.J., McMorris, F.R., Mirkin, B. and Robert, F.S.. DIMACS series in discrete mathematics and theoretical computer sciences, 61, 37–45. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minaka, N. (1993). Cladistics and biogeographic methods: Cladograms, components, and parsimony. Bulletin of the Biogeographical Society of Japan, 48, 1–27.Google Scholar
Nelson, G. (1970). Outline of a theory of comparative biology. Systematic Zoology, 19, 373–384.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nelson, G. (1971). “Cladism” as a philosophy of classification. Systematic Zoology, 20, 373–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, G. (1972). Phylogenetic relationship and classification. Systematic Zoology, 21, 227–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, G. (1973). Classification as an expression of phylogenetic relationships. Systematic Zoology, 22, 344–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, G. (1974). Darwin-Hennig classification: a reply to Ernst Mayr. Systematic Zoology, 23, 452–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, G. (1989). Species and taxa: systematics and evolution. In Speciation and its consequences, ed. Otte, D. and Endler, J.A.. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, pp. 60–81.Google Scholar
Nelson, G. and Ladiges, P.Y. (1992). Information content and fractional weight of three-item statements. Systematic Biology, 41, 490–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, G. and Platnick, N.Y. (1981). Systematics and biogeography: cladistics and vicariance. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Platnick, N.I. (1979). Philosophy and the transformation of cladistics. Systematic Zoology, 28, 537–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pleijel, F. and Rouse, G.W. (2000). Least-inclusive taxonomic unit: a new taxonomic concept for biology. Proceeding of the Royal Society of London, series B: Biological Sciences, 267, 627–636.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ridley, M. (1989). Principles of classification. In Philosophy of Biology, ed. Ruse, M., New York: Macmillan, pp. 167–179.Google Scholar
Rieppel, O. (2005). Des racines de positivisme logique dans la philosophie empiriocritique de Hennig. In Philosophie de la systématique, ed. Deleporte, P. and Lecointre, G., Biosystema, 24, Paris: Société Française de Systématique, pp. 9–22.Google Scholar
Sneath, P.H.A. and Sokal, R.R. (1973). Numerical Taxonomy. The Principles and Practice of Numerical Classification. San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman and Co.Google Scholar
Sokal, R.R. (1975). Mayr on cladism-and his critics. Systematic Zoology, 24, 257–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sokal, R.R. and Sneath, P.H.A. (1963). Principles of numerical taxonomy. San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman and Co.Google Scholar
Stoll, R.R. (1963). Set theory and logic (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Freeman and Co.Google Scholar
Tassy, P. (2005). Fait et théorie: Quelles connaissances de base pour la cladistique structurale? In Philosophie de la Systématique, ed. Deleporte, P. and Lecointre, G., Biosystema, 24, Paris: Société Française de Systématique, pp. 63–74.Google Scholar
Williams, D.M. and Ebach, M.C. (2008). Foundations of Systematics and Biogeography. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaragüeta Bagils, R. (2011). Ancêtre. In L’arbre du vivant existe-il? ed. Malécot, V., Léger, N. and Tassy, P., Biosystema, 28, Paris: Société Française de Systématique, pp. 41–62.Google Scholar
- 1
- Cited by