Author:
Schram Frederick R.,Koenemann Stefan
Abstract
AbstractThe production of phylogenies and taxonomies has long been based on personal interpretation rather than rigorous character analysis. The introduction of Hennig’s phylogenetic systematics (cladistics) has markedly improved the situation. However, not only is the amount of data derived from whatever sources (anatomy, development, and molecules) important but also the need to employ comprehensive taxon samples is critical. Any phylogeny represents one opinion (hypothesis) until tested against alternatives. A rigorous phylogeny can lead to more reliable classification schemes. Even so, phylogenies and taxonomies are only hypotheses that must remain open to consideration of alternative hypotheses. This chapter provides the framework for the structure of the rest of the book.
Publisher
Oxford University PressNew York
Reference49 articles.
1. C4.P32Abele, L. G. (ed.). 1982. Systematics, the fossil record, and biogeography. In: D. E. Bliss (ed.), The Biology of Crustacea, vol. 1. Academic Press, New York, NY.
2. Molecular evidence for inclusion of the phylum Pentastomida in the Crustacea.;Mol. Biol. Evol.,1989
3. Limitations of metazoan 18S rRNA sequence data: Implications for reconstructing a phylogeny of the animal kingdom and inferring the reality of the Cambrian explosion.;J. Mol. Evol.,1998
4. C4.P35Berger, S. A., and A. Stamatakis. 2010. Accuracy of morphology based phylogenetic fossil placement under maximum likelihood, pp. 1–8. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/ACS International Conference on Computer Systems Applications (AICCSA-10). IEEE Computer Society, Hammamet, Tunisia.
5. C4.P36Bininda-Emonds, O. R. P. 2004. New uses for old phylogenies, pp. 3–14. In: O. R. P. Bininda-Emonds (ed.), Phylogenetic Supertrees: Combining Information to Reveal the Tree of Life. Computation Biology, vol. 3. Kluwer, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.