Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Fifty shades of cladism

  • Published:
Biology & Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Quinn (Biol Philos 32:581–598, 2017) offered seven definitions of “cladist” and discussed the context in which they are used in relation to historical and current debates in systematics. As a member of her study taxon, I offer some contextual color commentary, clarifications on the views of “pattern cladists” regarding monophyly, ancestors, synapomorphy and other concepts, a definition of “syncretist”, and some thoughts on cladistics and philosophy in the twenty first century.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. Some authors (e.g., Morrison 2016) consider "affinity" to be a synonym of similarity, but it has not been, for nearly 200 years. Macleay (1819/1821) drew a clear epistemological distinction between two types of similarity—affinity and analogy—and argued that only the former provides evidence revealing the Natural System of relationships among taxa (Novick 2016). Macleay's insights were fundamental to the subsequent development of the concepts of homology, by Richard Owen in the 1830s (Owen 1992), and homoplasy, by Lankester (1870). Indeed, to elaborate what Darwin (1859: 420) said, " … the characters which naturalists consider as showing true affinity between any two or more species, are those which have been inherited from a common parent, and, in so far, all true classification is genealogical; that community of descent is the hidden bond which naturalists have been unconsciously seeking, and not some unknown plan of creation, or the enunciation of general propositions, and the mere putting together and separating objects more or less alike." In more modern usage, homology (the relationship among parts) reveals affinity (the relationship among taxa), which is explained by genealogy (the relationship among ancestors and descendants). See Williams and Ebach (2008) and Brower and de Pinna (2012) for pertinent discussion.

References

  • Barker D (2015) Seeing the wood for the trees: philosophical aspects of classical, Bayesian and likelihood approaches in statistical inference and some implications for phylogenetic analysis. Biol Philos 30:505–525

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baum DA (2017) Does the future of phylogenetic systematics really rest on the legacy of one mid-20th century German entomologist? Q Rev Biol 92:450–453

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brady RH (1985) On the independence of systematics. Cladistics 1:113–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brower AVZ (2000) Evolution is not an assumption of cladistics. Cladistics 16:143–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brower AVZ (2016) Are we all cladists? In: Williams DM, Schmitt M, Wheeler QD (eds) The future of phylogenetic systematics: the legacy of Willi Hennig. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 88–114

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Brower AVZ (2017) Parsimony be damned! Cladistics 33:667–670

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brower AVZ (2018) Statistical consistency and phylogenetic inference: a brief review. Cladistics (early view). https://doi.org/10.1111/cla.12211

    Google Scholar 

  • Brower AVZ, de Pinna MCC (2012) Homology and errors. Cladistics 28:529–538

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brower AVZ, de Pinna MCC (2014) About nothing. Cladistics 30:330–336

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brower AVZ, Schawaroch V (1996) Three steps of homology assessment. Cladistics 12:265–272

    Google Scholar 

  • Darwin C (1859) On the origin of species. John Murray, London

    Google Scholar 

  • de Pinna MCC (1991) Concepts and tests of homology in the cladistic paradigm. Cladistics 7:367–394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Queiroz K (1988) Systematics and the Darwinian revolution. Philos Sci 55:238–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ebach MC, Morrone JJ, Williams DM (2008) A new cladistics of cladists. Biol Philos 23:153–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Editors (2016) Editorial. Cladistics 32:1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farris JS (1979a) On the naturalness of phylogenetic classification. Syst Zool 28:200–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farris JS (1979b) The information content of the phylogenetic system. Syst Zool 28:483–519

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farris JS (1983) The logical basis of phylogenetic analysis. In: Platnick NI, Funk VA (eds) Advances in cladistics. Columbia University Press, New York, pp 7–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Farris JS (1999) Likelihood and inconsistency. Cladistics 15:199–204

    Google Scholar 

  • Felsenstein J (1978) Cases in which parsimony or compatibility methods will be positively misleading. Syst Zool 27:401–410

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzhugh K (1997) Cladograms as explanatory hypotheses. (talk at Willi Hennig Society Meeting, Washington, DC)

  • Fitzhugh K (2006) The abduction of phylogenetic hypotheses. Zootaxa 1145:1–110

    Google Scholar 

  • Hennig W (1950) Grundzüge einer Theorie der phylogenetischen Systematik. Deutscher Zentralverlag, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Hennig W (1966) Phylogenetic systematics. University of Illinois Press, Urbana

    Google Scholar 

  • Hull DL (1988) Science as a process. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Judd DD, Brower AVZ (2002) Abstracts of the 20th annual meeting of the Willi Hennig Society. Cladistics 18:218–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kluge AG (1997) Testability and the refutation and corroboration of cladistic hypotheses. Cladistics 13:81–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kluge AG (1998) Total evidence or taxonomic congruence: cladistics or consensus classification. Cladistics 14:151–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kluge AG (1999) The science of phylogenetic systematics: explanation, prediction, and test. Cladistics 15:429–436

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lankester ER (1870) On the use of the term homology in modern zoology, and the distinction between homogenetic and homoplastic agreements. Ann Mag Nat Hist (4th Ser.) 6:34–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacLeay WS (1819) Horae entomologicae: or essays on the annulose animals. S. Bagster, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mayr E (1982) The growth of biological thought. Belknap Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Morrison DA (2016) Genealogies: pedigrees and phylogenies are reticulating networks not just divergent trees. Evol Biol 43:456–473

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson GJ, Platnick NI (1981) Systematics and biogeography: cladistics and vicariance. Columbia University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Novick A (2016) On the origins of the quinarian system of classification. J Hist Biol 49:95–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owen R (1992) The Hunterian Lectures in comparative anatomy, May and June 1837. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Patterson C (1981) Significance of fossils in determining evolutionary relationships. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 12:195–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Platnick NI (1979) Philosophy and the transformation of cladistics. Syst Zool 28:537–546

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Popper KR (1959) The logic of scientific discovery. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper KR (1979) Objective knowledge—an evolutionary approach. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Quinn A (2016) Phylogenetic inference to the best explanation and the bad lot argument. Synthese 193:3025–3039

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quinn A (2017) When is a cladist not a cladist? Biol Philos 32:581–598

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rieppel O (2008) Hypothetico-deductivism in systematics: fact or fiction? Pap Avulsos Zool 48:263–273

    Google Scholar 

  • Rindal E, Brower AVZ (2011) Do model-based phylogenetic analyses perform better than parsimony? A test with empirical data. Cladistics 27:331–334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schuh RT, Brower AVZ (2009) Biological systematics: principles and applications, 2nd edn. Cornell University Press, Ithaca

    Google Scholar 

  • Siddall ME, Kluge AG (1997) Probabilism and phylogenetic inference. Cladistics 13:313–336

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon M (2016) Twitter nerd-fight reveals a long, bizarre scientific feud. Wired Magazine Simon. https://www.wired.com/2016/02/twitter-nerd-fight-reveals-a-long-bizarre-scientific-feud/

  • Sober E (1985) A likelihood justification of parsimony. Cladistics 1:209–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sober E (1988) Reconstructing the past: parsimony, evolution and inference. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Sober E (2015) Ockham’s razors: a user’s manual. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sokal RR, Sneath PHA (1963) Principles of numerical taxonomy. W. H. Freeman & Co., San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogt L (2008) The unfalsifiability of cladograms and its consequences. Cladistics 24:62–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vogt L (2014a) Why phylogeneticists should care less about Popper’s falsificationism. Cladistics 30:1–4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vogt L (2014b) Popper and phylogenetics, a misguided rendezvous. Aust Syst Bot 27:85–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wenzel JW (2002) Presidential address: the role of the Willi Hennig Society in systematics. Cladistics 18:1–3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler WC, Coddington JA, Crowley LM, Dimitrov D, Goloboff PA, Griswold CE, Hormiga G, Prendini L, Ramírez MJ, Sierwald P, Almeida-Silva L, Alvarez-Padilla F, Arnedo MA, Benavides-Silva LR, Benjamin SP, Bond JE, Grismado CJ, Hasan E, Hedin MC, Izquierdo MA, Labarque FM, Ledford J, Lopardo L, Maddison WP, Miller JA, Piacentini LN, Platnick NI, Potolow D, Silva-Dávila D, Scharff N, Szüts T, Ubick D, Vink CJ, Wood HM, Zhang J (2017) The spider tree of life: phylogeny of Araneae based on target-gene analyses from an extensive taxon sampling. Cladistics 33:574–616

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiley EO (1981) Phylogenetics. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams DM, Ebach MC (2008) Foundations of systematics and biogeography. Springer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I think Aleta Quinn for providing the impetus for writing this essay, and anonymous reviewers for helpful suggestions. Support for work in my lab was provided through a collaborative grant, Dimensions US-Biota-São Paulo: Assembly and evolution of the Amazon biota and its environment: an integrated approach, supported by the US National Science Foundation (NSF DEB 1241056), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP Grant 2012/50260-6).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Evolution and Ecology Group, Department of Biology, Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, TN, 37132, USA

    Andrew V. Z. Brower

Authors
  1. Andrew V. Z. Brower
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew V. Z. Brower.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Brower, A.V.Z. Fifty shades of cladism. Biol Philos 33, 8 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-018-9622-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-018-9622-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation