Produção Nacional
Revisado por pares
Species and tokogenetic homologies: 10 sutras
2013; Wiley; Volume: 30; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1111/cla.12031
ISSN1096-0031
Autores Tópico(s)Scarabaeidae Beetle Taxonomy and Biogeography
ResumoCladisticsVolume 30, Issue 1 p. 10-10 Letter to the EditorFree Access Species and tokogenetic homologies: 10 sutras Leandro C. S. Assis, Leandro C. S. Assis leandassis@gmail.com leandroassis@ufmg.br Departamento de Botânica, Instituto de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, MG, 31270-901 BrazilSearch for more papers by this author Leandro C. S. Assis, Leandro C. S. Assis leandassis@gmail.com leandroassis@ufmg.br Departamento de Botânica, Instituto de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, MG, 31270-901 BrazilSearch for more papers by this author First published: 04 June 2013 https://doi.org/10.1111/cla.12031Citations: 4AboutSectionsPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Sir, According to Hall (1994), homology is at all levels of the biological hierarchy. According to Brower and de Pinna (2012), homology is equal to synapomorphy. According to Hennig (1966), phylogenetic relationships (monophyly) and tokogenetic relationships (reproductive community) relate to supraspecific and species taxa, respectively.11 Mishler and Theriot (2000), however, have treated species as monophyletic groups, thus using synapomorphies for species delimitation. Also according to Hennig (1966), synapomorphies delimit supraspecific taxa (monophyletic groups), whereas cohesion and isolation delimit species (tokogenetic groups).22 Meier and Willmann (2000) have proposed a modified version of Hennig's species concept. If synapomorphy delimits supraspecific taxa, and if synapomorphy is equal to homology, then homology cannot delimit species. If homology is at all levels of the biological hierarchy, is homology equivalent to synapomorphy? Would not synapomorphy be a kind of homology relative to supraspecific taxa?33 Müller (2003), Wägele (2004), Love (2007), and Assis (2013) have argued that homology and synapomorphy are not synonymous And what kind of homology would be relative to species? Tokogenetic homologies are at the level of species (tokogenetic relationships), whereas synapomorphies are at the level of supraspecific taxa (phylogenetic relationships). Tokogenetic homologies can be associated to any criteria of species delimitation. Notes 1 Mishler and Theriot (2000), however, have treated species as monophyletic groups, thus using synapomorphies for species delimitation. 2 Meier and Willmann (2000) have proposed a modified version of Hennig's species concept. 3 Müller (2003), Wägele (2004), Love (2007), and Assis (2013) have argued that homology and synapomorphy are not synonymous References Assis, L.C.S., 2013. Are homology and synapomorphy the same or different? Cladistics 29, 7– 9. Wiley Online LibraryWeb of Science®Google Scholar Brower, A.V.Z., de Pinna, M.C.C., 2012. Homology and errors. Cladistics 28, 529– 538. Wiley Online LibraryWeb of Science®Google Scholar B.K. Hall (Ed.), 1994. Homology: The Hierarchical Basis of Comparative Biology. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. CASPubMedGoogle Scholar Hennig, W., 1966. Phylogenetic Systematics. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, IL. PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Love, A., 2007. Functional homology and homology of function: biological concepts and philosophical consequences. Biol. Philos. 22, 691– 708. CrossrefWeb of Science®Google Scholar Meier, R., Willmann, R., 2000. The Hennigian species concept. In Q.D. Wheeler, R. Meier (Eds.), Species Concepts and Phylogenetic Theory: A Debate. Columbia University Press, New York, pp. 30– 43. Google Scholar Mishler, B., Theriot, E., 2000. The phylogenetic species concept (sensu Mishler and Theriot). In Q.D. Wheeler, R. Meier (Eds.), Species Concepts and Phylogenetic Theory: A Debate. Columbia University Press, New York, pp. 44– 54. Google Scholar Müller, G.B., 2003. Homology: the evolution of morphological organization. In G.B. Müller, S.A. Newman (Eds.), Origination of Organismal Form: beyond the Gene in Developmental and Evolutionary Biology. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 51– 69. Google Scholar Wägele, J.W., 2004. Hennig's phylogenetic systematics brought up to date. In D.M. Williams, P.L. Forey (Eds.), Milestones in Systematics. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 101– 126. CrossrefWeb of Science®Google Scholar Citing Literature Volume30, Issue1February 2014Pages 10-10 ReferencesRelatedInformation
Referência(s)