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
10 - Why should cladograms be dichotomous?
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. 230 - 257Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2016
References
Belon, P. (1555). L’Histoire de la nature des oyseaux, avec leurs descriptions et naïfs portraicts retirez du naturel, escrite sept livres, etc. Paris: Gilles Corrozet.Google Scholar
Benton, M., Donoghue, P.C.J. and Asher, R.J. (2009). Calibrating and constraining molecular clocks. In Timetree of Life, ed. Hedges, S.B. and Kumar, S.. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 35–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brundin, L. (1966). Transantarctic relationships and their significance, as evidenced by chironomid midges. Kungliga Svenska Vetenskapsakademiens Handlingar, Fjärde series, 11, 1–472.Google Scholar
Bock, W.J. (1973). Philosophical foundations of classical evolutionary classification. Systematic Zoology, 22, 375–392.Google Scholar
Cao, N., Zaragüeta Bagils, R. and Vignes-Lebbe, R. (2007). A hierarchical representation of the hypothesis of homology. Geodiversitas, 29, 5–15.Google Scholar
Darlington, P.J., Jr. (1970). A practical criticism of Hennig-Brundin “Phylogenic [sic] systematics” and Antarctic biogeography. Systematic Zoology, 19, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darlu, P. and Tassy, P. (1993). La reconstruction phylogénétique. Concepts et méthodes. Paris: Masson.Google Scholar
Darwin, C. (1859). On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
Descartes, R. (1637). Discours de la méthode pour bien conduire sa raison et chercher la vérité dans les sciences, plus la Dioptrique, les Météores et la Géométrie qui sont des essais de cette méthode. Leyde: Ian Maire.Google Scholar
Dupuis, C. (1978). Permanence et actualité de la systématique: la “systématique phylogénétique” de Willi Hennig. Cahiers des Naturalistes, 34, 1–69.Google Scholar
Doolitle, W.F. and Bapteste, E. (2006). Pattern pluralism and the Tree of Life hypothesis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104, 2043–2049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farris, J.S. (1983). The logical basis of phylogenetic analysis. In Advances in cladistics, II, ed. Platnick, N.I. and Funk, V.A.. New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 7–36.Google Scholar
Gregg, J.R. (1954). The Language of Taxonomy: An Application of Symbolic Logic to the Study of Classificatory Systems. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hennig, W. (1950). Grundzüge einer Theorie der phylogenetischen Systematik. Berlin: Deutscher Zentralverlag.Google Scholar
Hennig, W. (1957). Systematik und Phylogenese. In Bericht über die Hundertjahrfeier der Deutschen Entomologischen Gesellschaft Berlin, ed. Hannemann, H.-J.. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, pp. 50–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hennig, W. (1968). Elementos de una sistemática filogenética. Buenos Aires: Editorial Universitaria de Buenos Aires.Google Scholar
Hennig, W. (1975). Cladistic analysis or cladistic classification?: a reply to Ernst Mayr. Systematic Zoology, 24, 244–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Judd, W.S., Campbell, C.S., Bouharmont, J., et al. (2001). Botanique systématique: Une perspective phylogénétique. Louvain-la-Neuve, Paris: De Boeck Université.Google Scholar
Kitching, I.J., Forey, P.L., Humphries, C.J. and Williams, D.M. (1998). Cladistics: The Theory and Practice of Parsimony Analysis, 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakatos, I. (1970). Methodology of scientific research programs. In Criticism and the Growth of Scientific Knowledge, ed. Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 91–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lebbe, J. (1991). Représentation des concepts en biologie et médecine. Introduction à l’analyse des connaissances et à l’identification assistée par ordinateur. Ph.D. Thesis in Life Sciences. Paris: Université Paris 6 Pierre-et-Marie-Curie.Google Scholar
Lecointre, G. and Le Guyader, H. (2001). Classification phylogénétique du vivant. Paris: Belin.Google Scholar
Mayr, E. (1942). Systematics and the Origin of Species. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Mayr, E. (1963). Animal Species and Evolution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayr, E. (1974). Cladistic analysis or cladistic classification? Zeitschrift für Zoologische Systematik und Evolutionsforschung, 12, 94–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, G.J. (1971). “Cladism” as a philosophy of classification. Systematic Zoology, 20, 373–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, G.J. (1994). Homology and systematics. In The Hierarchical Basis of Comparative Biology, ed. Hall, B.K.. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 101–149.Google Scholar
Nelson, G.J. and Platnick, N.I. (1980). Multiple branching in cladograms: two interpretations. Systematic Zoology, 29, 86–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, G.J. and Platnick, N.I. (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, 537–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popper, K.R. (2002 [1935]). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Routledge Classics.Google Scholar
Quine, W. v. O. (1951). Two dogmas of empiricism. The Philosophical Review, 60, 20–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rieppel, O. 2016. Willi Hennig as philosopher. In The Future of Phylogenetic Systematics – The Legacy of Willi Hennig, ed. Williams, D.M., Schmitt, M. and Wheeler, Q.D.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 357–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rindal, E. and Brower, A.V.Z. (2011). Do model-based phylogenetic analyses perform better than parsimony? A test with empirical data. Cladistics, 27, 331–334.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saitou, N. and Nei, M. (1987). The neighbor-joining method: a new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 4, 406–425.Google Scholar
Samadi, S. and Barberousse, A. (2005). L’arbre, le réseau et les espèces. Une définition du concept d’espèce ancrée dans la théorie de l’évolution. Biosystema, 24, 53–62.Google Scholar
Samadi, S. and Barberousse, A. (2006). The tree, the network, and the species. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 89, 509–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, G.G. (1961). Principles of Animal Taxonomy. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sneath, P.H.A. and Sokal, R.R. (1973). Numerical Taxonomy. San Francisco, CA: Freeman.Google Scholar
Williams, D.M. (2004). Homologues and homology, phenetics and cladistics: 150 years of progress. In Milestones in Systematics, ed. Williams, D.M. and Forey, P.L., Boca Raton: CRC Press, pp. 191–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodger, J.H. (1952). From biology to mathematics. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 3, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaragüeta Bagils, R., Lelièvre, H. and Tassy, P. (2004). Temporal paralogy, cladograms, and the quality of the fossil record. Geodiversitas, 26, 381–389.Google Scholar
- 4
- Cited by