Hubbry Logo
MonophylyMonophylyMain
Open search
Monophyly
Community hub
Monophyly
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Monophyly
Monophyly
Monophyly
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

A phylogenetic tree: both blue and red groups are monophyletic. The green group is paraphyletic: it is missing a monophyletic subgroup – the blue group – that shares a common ancestor with itself. In this form, monophyletic means "no sideways stems leaving the group".
A cladogram [citation needed]of the primates, showing a monophyletic taxon: the simians (in yellow); a paraphyletic taxon: the prosimians (in cyan, including the red patch); and a polyphyletic group: the night-active primates, i.e., the lorises and the tarsiers (in red).
A cladogram of the vertebrates showing phylogenetic groups. A monophyletic taxon (in yellow): the group of "reptiles and birds", contains its most recent common ancestor and all descendants of that ancestor. A paraphyletic taxon (in cyan): the group of reptiles, contains its most recent common ancestor, but does not contain all the descendants (namely Aves) of that ancestor. A polyphyletic "group" (in red): the group of all warm-blooded amniotes (Aves and Mammalia), does not contain the most recent common ancestor of all its members; this group is not seen as a taxonomic unit and is not considered a taxon by modern systematists.

In biological cladistics for the classification of organisms, monophyly is the condition of a taxonomic grouping being a clade – that is, a grouping of organisms which meets these criteria:

  1. the grouping contains its own most recent common ancestor (or more precisely an ancestral population), i.e. excludes non-descendants of that common ancestor
  2. the grouping contains all the descendants of that common ancestor, without exception

Monophyly is contrasted with paraphyly and polyphyly as shown in the second diagram. A paraphyletic grouping meets 1. but not 2., thus consisting of the descendants of a common ancestor, excepting one or more monophyletic subgroups. A polyphyletic grouping meets neither criterion, and instead serves to characterize convergent relationships of biological features rather than genetic relationships – for example, night-active primates, fruit trees, or aquatic insects. As such, these characteristic features of a polyphyletic grouping are not inherited from a common ancestor, but evolved independently.

Monophyletic groups are typically characterised by shared derived characteristics (synapomorphies), which distinguish organisms in the clade from other organisms. An equivalent term is holophyly.[1]

The word "mono-phyly" means "one-tribe" in Greek.

These definitions have taken some time to be accepted. When the cladistics school of thought became mainstream in the 1960s, several alternative definitions were in use. Indeed, taxonomists sometimes used terms without defining them, leading to confusion in the early literature,[2] a confusion which persists.[3]

The first diagram shows a phylogenetic tree with two monophyletic groups. The several groups and subgroups are particularly situated as branches of the tree to indicate ordered lineal relationships between all the organisms shown. Further, any group may (or may not) be considered a taxon by modern systematics, depending upon the selection of its members in relation to their common ancestor(s); see second and third diagrams.

Etymology

[edit]

The term monophyly, or monophyletic, derives from the two Ancient Greek words μόνος (mónos), meaning "alone, only, unique", and φῦλον (phûlon), meaning "genus, species",[4][5] and refers to the fact that a monophyletic group includes organisms (e.g., genera, species) consisting of all the descendants of a unique common ancestor.

Conversely, the term polyphyly, or polyphyletic, builds on the ancient Greek prefix πολύς (polús), meaning "many, a lot of",[4][5] and refers to the fact that a polyphyletic group includes organisms arising from multiple ancestral sources.

By comparison, the term paraphyly, or paraphyletic, uses the ancient Greek prefix παρά (pará), meaning "beside, near",[4][5] and refers to the situation in which one or several monophyletic subgroups are left apart from all other descendants of a unique common ancestor. That is, a paraphyletic group is nearly monophyletic, hence the prefix pará. [citation needed]

Definitions

[edit]

On the broadest scale, definitions fall into two groups.

  • Willi Hennig (1966:148) defined monophyly as groups based on synapomorphy (in contrast to paraphyletic groups, based on symplesiomorphy, and polyphyletic groups, based on convergence). Some authors have sought to define monophyly to include paraphyly as any two or more groups sharing a common ancestor.[3][6][7][8] However, this broader definition encompasses both monophyletic and paraphyletic groups as defined above. Therefore, most scientists today restrict the term "monophyletic" to refer to groups consisting of all the descendants of one (hypothetical) common ancestor.[2] However, when considering taxonomic groups such as genera and species, the most appropriate nature of their common ancestor is rather a population. Assuming that it would be one individual or mating pair is unrealistic for sexually reproducing species, which are by definition interbreeding populations.[9]
  • Monophyly (or holophyly) and associated terms are restricted to discussions of taxa, and are not necessarily accurate when used to describe what Hennig called tokogenetic relationships – now referred to as genealogies. Some argue that using a broader definition, such as a species and all its descendants, does not really work to define a genus.[9] The loose definition also fails to recognize the relations of all organisms.[10] According to D. M. Stamos, a satisfactory cladistic definition of a species or genus is impossible because many species (and even genera) may form by "budding" from an existing species, leaving the parent species paraphyletic; or the species or genera may be the result of hybrid speciation.[11]

The concepts of monophyly, paraphyly, and polyphyly have been used in deducing key genes for barcoding of diverse group of species.[12]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Monophyly

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
In and , monophyly describes a taxonomic group, or , that consists of a single common and all of its , ensuring that the group represents a complete branch of the evolutionary without excluding any lineages derived from that . This principle forms the cornerstone of , a method of classification that prioritizes phylogenetic relationships over superficial similarities, allowing scientists to construct hierarchical groupings that accurately reflect descent with modification. Monophyletic groups are typically identified through shared derived traits, known as synapomorphies, which distinguish them from other taxa and provide evidence of their evolutionary unity. The concept of monophyly has deep historical roots, originating in the mid-19th century with Ernst Haeckel's introduction of the term "cladus" in 1866 to denote monophyletic assemblages based on unitary descent from a common progenitor. It was further developed in the early by figures such as Lucien Cuénot and , who emphasized phylogenetic continuity, but achieved its modern formulation through Willi Hennig's foundational work in during the 1950s and 1960s. Hennig's approach revolutionized by advocating for the exclusive use of monophyletic taxa in classifications, rejecting artificial groupings that do not align with evolutionary history. Monophyly's importance lies in its ability to produce stable, natural classifications that minimize —the independent evolution of similar traits—and maximize the information content of phylogenetic trees. In contrast to paraphyletic groups, which exclude some descendants (such as reptiles excluding birds), or polyphyletic groups, which unite organisms from multiple unrelated ancestors (such as "flying animals" including bats and birds but excluding ), monophyletic taxa ensure comprehensive representation of biodiversity's evolutionary patterns. This framework underpins contemporary fields like , where DNA sequence data is used to test and refine monophyly across diverse organisms, from microbes to mammals.

Terminology

Etymology

The term "monophyly" derives from the Ancient Greek words monos (μόνος), meaning "alone," "single," or "unique," and phylon (φῦλον), meaning "tribe," "race," or "stock," yielding a literal translation of "single tribe" or "one tribe." This etymological construction reflects the concept's focus on unity of origin within biological groupings. Ernst Haeckel coined the term "monophyletisch" (monophyletic) in 1866 in his two-volume work Generelle Morphologie der Organismen, where he applied it to describe taxa arising from a single ancestral form. Haeckel also introduced "polyphyletisch" (polyphyletic) in the same publication, drawing from the Greek prefix poly (πολύς), meaning "many." In contrast, "," from the Greek prefix para (παρά), meaning "beside," "near," or "alongside," combined with phylon, was coined by Willi Hennig in 1966. The terminological framework for monophyly and emerged in Haeckel's early evolutionary , while was introduced later to complete the distinctions in . Haeckel used monophyly and within his proposed natural phylogenetic systems to underscore the importance of in classifying organisms.

Definitions

A monophyletic group, also known as a clade, is defined as a taxonomic grouping that includes a common ancestral species and all of its descendant species, representing a complete branch on a phylogenetic tree. This definition ensures that the group captures the entirety of evolutionary lineages stemming from the ancestor, excluding any subsets that omit descendants. In informal usage, the term monophyly is sometimes applied loosely to any group sharing a common , but cladistic principles strictly require the inclusion of all to avoid excluding lineages that diverged after the ancestral event. The etymological roots trace to Greek words meaning "single tribe," emphasizing unity from one ancestral line. Willi Hennig first formalized monophyly in 1950 by defining such groups through shared derived characteristics, known as synapomorphies, which distinguish them from other lineages. He refined this in , specifying that a monophyletic group comprises a single ancestral and all descended from it, thereby establishing a rigorous criterion for phylogenetic classification. In modern , a group is considered monophyletic if it constitutes the smallest encompassing an and every one of its , often visualized as a contiguous segment of a that cannot be subdivided without excluding parts of the lineage. Debates persist regarding the applicability of monophyly to -level taxa, particularly in cases of hybridization, where between can blur lineage boundaries and prevent strict monophyly, and incomplete lineage sorting, where ancestral polymorphisms persist across recently diverged populations, leading to non-monophyletic trees. These processes challenge the assumption of discrete monophyletic units at fine taxonomic scales, prompting refinements in concepts that accommodate reticulate .

History

Origin of the Concept

The concept of monophyly was first introduced by the German zoologist in his 1866 work Generelle Morphologie der Organismen, as part of his pioneering efforts to establish a phylogenetic of grounded in evolutionary principles. Haeckel defined monophyletic groups as natural lineages derived from a single common , emphasizing their unity through shared descent and contrasting them with artificial classifications based on superficial similarities rather than evolutionary . Haeckel's formulation was heavily influenced by Charles Darwin's 1859 publication , which articulated the principle of descent with modification and implied monophyletic patterns of through common ancestry, although Darwin himself did not employ the term monophyly. Haeckel extended these ideas by constructing the first explicit Darwinian phylogenetic trees, portraying monophyletic taxa as branching from a unified root to represent the genealogical relationships among organisms. In the early 20th century, botanists such as Adolf Engler adopted and applied monophyletic principles to plant phylogenies, integrating evolutionary relationships into systematic classifications like his Syllabus der Pflanzenfamilien (1892, revised through 1936), which prioritized descent from common ancestors over purely morphological groupings. The concept was further developed in the early-to-mid by figures such as Lucien Cuénot and , who emphasized phylogenetic continuity in evolutionary classifications. Cuénot, in the 1940s, introduced the term "" to describe autonomous branches in the corresponding to monophyletic taxa. Huxley, in 1957, adopted and popularized "" as a monophyletic unit arising from , distinguishing it from non-monophyletic grades. However, these early conceptualizations of monophyly were limited by the pre-genetic era's reliance on morphological traits for inferring , which often led to incomplete or biased reconstructions without the corroborative power of molecular data.

Development in

The concept of monophyly was revived and formalized in the mid-20th century by Willi Hennig, who developed phylogenetic systematics in his 1950 manuscript, published in English as Phylogenetic Systematics in 1966. Hennig argued that taxonomic groups should be defined as monophyletic, comprising an and all its , identified through shared derived characters (synapomorphies) rather than shared primitive characters (symplesiomorphies), which could lead to artificial groupings. This approach shifted emphasis from overall similarity to hierarchical evolutionary relationships, laying the groundwork for as a rigorous method. During the 1960s and , sparked intense debates within , particularly against , which classified organisms based on overall phenotypic similarity without regard to evolutionary history. Proponents of , influenced by Hennig, advocated for monophyletic groups as the only natural units in , arguing that phenetic methods often produced paraphyletic or polyphyletic assemblages that misrepresented phylogeny. These debates, fueled by publications in journals like Systematic Zoology, culminated in a toward cladistic principles by the late , establishing monophyly as central to reconstructing evolutionary trees. The marked the "cladistic revolution," with widespread adoption of computational tools that operationalized Hennigian methods for large datasets. Software like PAUP (Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony), first released in 1981 and documented in its 1985 manual, enabled parsimony-based analyses to infer monophyletic clades from character matrices, making phylogeny reconstruction more efficient and reproducible. This technological advance facilitated the proliferation of cladistic studies across taxa, solidifying monophyly as a methodological standard. From the 1990s onward, the integration of molecular data revolutionized cladistics, allowing resolution of long-standing paraphyletic groups through DNA sequence analyses. For instance, molecular phylogenies demonstrated that traditional reptiles (excluding birds) were paraphyletic, as birds nested within archosaurs alongside crocodilians, prompting redefinitions to achieve monophyly under broader clades like Sauropsida. By the 2000s, molecular tools had become integral, enhancing the precision of monophyletic inferences across diverse lineages. As of 2025, monophyly remains the universal standard in , underpinning nearly all modern classifications in journals and databases like . However, ongoing refinements address challenges from reticulate evolution, such as hybridization and , which introduce network-like structures; phylogenomic methods now incorporate these to refine monophyletic inferences without abandoning the clade-based framework.

Characteristics

Properties of Monophyletic Groups

Monophyletic groups are characterized by their hierarchical nesting, wherein they form complete, non-overlapping branches on phylogenetic trees that can be infinitely subdivided into smaller subclades while maintaining the integrity of descent from a common . This nested structure arises from the branching patterns of , allowing monophyletic groups to be embedded within larger monophyletic groups without partial overlaps or exclusions, thereby providing a scalable framework for organizing . In cladistic , this property ensures that classifications mirror the generative of lineages, as articulated by Hennig in his foundational work on phylogenetic systematics. A defining feature of monophyletic groups is their completeness, which mandates the inclusion of all descendant lineages from the , eliminating any "gaps" that would fragment the evolutionary record. This wholeness is empirically verifiable through the single-cut test on a , where the group can be isolated from the remainder of the tree with one vertical incision, distinguishing it from non-monophyletic assemblages that require multiple cuts. Such completeness guarantees that the group represents an unbroken segment of genealogical history, facilitating precise evolutionary inferences. Monophyletic groups exhibit evolutionary coherence, stemming from a singular event that binds their members through shared derived traits, often manifesting as unique ecological adaptations or morphological innovations. This unity reflects a cohesive trajectory of descent, where the group's boundaries align with the propagation of synapomorphies from the ancestral node, underscoring their role as natural units in . These groups possess inherent stability, as their foundation in genealogical reality renders them resilient to revision when confronted with new phylogenetic data, in contrast to paraphyletic constructs that frequently require reconfiguration. Phylogenetic classifications emphasizing monophyly thus promote long-term consistency, converging toward refined accuracy as datasets expand, which enhances their utility in . Mathematically, a monophyletic group is represented in tree topology as a single internal node encompassing all its terminal descendant taxa, forming a contiguous subtree that can be encoded in formats like Newick notation—for instance, (A,B,(C,D)) for a with subgroups. This formal depiction underscores the group's indivisibility and hierarchical embedding within the broader phylogenetic graph.

Identification Using Synapomorphies

A synapomorphy is defined as a shared derived character state that is unique to two or more taxa within a and is hypothesized to have originated in their , thereby distinguishing the clade from more distant relatives and ancestral forms. This contrasts with symplesiomorphies, which are shared primitive traits inherited from a more distant ancestor but not indicative of immediate . For instance, feathers represent a synapomorphy for birds, as they are a novel trait evolved within the avian lineage rather than present in reptilian ancestors. To identify monophyletic groups using synapomorphies, phylogenetic s are constructed through computational methods that optimize the distribution of these derived characters across taxa. Maximum parsimony seeks the tree topology requiring the minimal number of evolutionary changes to explain the observed synapomorphies, assuming simplicity in character evolution. Maximum likelihood evaluates tree hypotheses by calculating the probability of observing the data under explicit models of character evolution, selecting the tree that maximizes this likelihood for shared derived states. extends this by incorporating prior probabilities on trees and parameters, sampling from the posterior distribution to assess the support for clades defined by synapomorphies. In all approaches, monophyly is verified if the putative group forms a contiguous on the tree, supported by one or more unambiguous synapomorphies without requiring ad hoc reversals or convergences within the . Character coding for synapomorphy identification begins with assessing homology, the criterion that traits are similar due to rather than convergence. Outgroup comparison is the standard method, where a closely related but external (the outgroup) serves as a reference to polarize characters: a state shared by the ingroup but absent or different in the outgroup is coded as derived (apomorphic), while the outgroup state is primitive (plesiomorphic). This process ensures that only traits indicative of clade-specific are used to delimit monophyletic groups, minimizing errors from ancestral resemblances. In contemporary phylogenetic studies, molecular data provide robust synapomorphies through DNA sequence comparisons, particularly from conserved regions like ribosomal genes (e.g., 18S or 28S rDNA), which evolve slowly enough to reveal deep divergences while accumulating clade-specific substitutions. Alignments of these sequences are analyzed under substitution models to infer shared derived nucleotides or indels as synapomorphies, often integrated with morphological data for total-evidence approaches that enhance resolution of monophyly. A primary challenge in synapomorphy-based identification is , where analogous traits arise independently in unrelated lineages, falsely suggesting monophyly by mimicking shared derived states. This can be mitigated by employing multi-locus datasets, which draw from numerous genomic regions to statistically distinguish true synapomorphies from convergences through increased phylogenetic signal and reduced error.

Comparisons

To

In contrast to monophyly, refers to a taxonomic group that consists of a common and some, but not all, of its . This exclusion often arises in grade-based classifications, where organisms are grouped by shared primitive traits rather than comprehensive evolutionary lineages. The primary distinction lies in their representation of evolutionary history: monophyletic groups encompass the complete set of descendants from a common , thereby reflecting natural lineages, while paraphyletic groups artificially segment by omitting certain derived subgroups, creating incomplete "buckets" that do not align with phylogenetic relationships. Such groupings fail to capture the full scope of descent, leading to hierarchical inconsistencies in systems. Paraphyletic assemblages have persisted in traditional due to historical reliance on morphological similarities and Linnaean ranks, as seen in the class Reptilia, which conventionally includes , snakes, , and crocodilians but excludes birds despite birds' descent from reptilian ancestors within the Dinosauria . This exclusion renders Reptilia paraphyletic under modern phylogenetic standards, a holdover from pre-cladistic systems that prioritized phenotypic grades over monophyletic inclusivity. Retaining paraphyletic groups introduces taxonomic instability, as emerging phylogenetic data—such as molecular and evidence—frequently reveals excluded lineages that necessitate reclassification, undermining the and consistency of taxonomic frameworks. In contrast, monophyletic approaches enhance stability by grounding taxa in empirical homologies and comprehensive descent patterns. A notable example of transitioning from paraphyly to monophyly is the redefinition of "fish": traditionally, fish formed a paraphyletic grade encompassing aquatic vertebrates but excluding tetrapods, their terrestrial descendants; cladistic analysis instead recognizes (lobe-finned fish) as the monophyletic that includes coelacanths, , and all tetrapods, thus integrating the full ary lineage.

To Polyphyly

Polyphyly refers to a taxonomic group composed of organisms that derive from two or more distinct ancestral lineages, excluding their , which lacks the defining shared characteristic. Unlike monophyly, which encompasses all descendants of a single common ancestor, polyphyly arises when unrelated lineages are artificially grouped together based on superficial similarities rather than shared evolutionary history. The primary distinction between monophyly and lies in and trait origins: monophyletic groups are unified by synapomorphies—derived traits inherited from a common —while polyphyletic assemblages rely on homoplasies, such as convergent traits that evolve independently in separate lineages. A common cause of polyphyly is adaptive convergence, where environmental pressures lead to similar adaptations in distantly related organisms; for instance, the category of "flying tetrapods" includes bats (mammals), birds (archosaurs), and pterosaurs (reptiles), which independently evolved powered flight despite lacking a shared flying . Phylogenetic analysis detects polyphyletic groups by reconstructing evolutionary trees, where members of such groups appear non-contiguous or scattered across multiple branches, indicating multiple origins rather than a single . In , polyphyletic groupings are rejected because they fail to reflect natural evolutionary relationships, often leading to reclassification to prioritize monophyletic taxa; for example, "warm-blooded animals" (endotherms) traditionally lumped birds and mammals but is now recognized as polyphyletic due to the independent of endothermy in these lineages.

Applications

In Phylogenetic Systematics

In phylogenetic systematics, the principle of monophyly dictates that taxa should only be recognized if they form monophyletic groups, encompassing a and all its , to ensure classifications reflect evolutionary relationships accurately. This approach underpins , where non-monophyletic assemblages are rejected in favor of clades that capture true phylogenetic history. The International Code of , known as the , formalizes this by providing rules for naming clades without reliance on traditional taxonomic ranks, emphasizing definitional stability tied to phylogenetic hypotheses. This monophyletic focus challenges the Linnaean system's hierarchical ranks, such as kingdom or class, which often impose artificial categories that do not align with branching patterns in phylogenies. By promoting rank-free classification, PhyloCode allows taxa to be defined via explicit phylogenetic specifications, like node- or stem-based clades, enabling more flexible and hypothesis-driven taxonomy that avoids rank inflation or deflation. In practice, software tools like MrBayes facilitate this through Bayesian inference of phylogenies, where users can enforce monophyletic constraints on specific taxa during Markov chain Monte Carlo sampling to test and refine clade hypotheses. Monophyly also informs conservation policy by prioritizing groups with high evolutionary distinctiveness, as assessed in tools like the IUCN Red List's EDGE (Evolutionarily Distinct and Globally Endangered) index, which weights extinction risk by a species' phylogenetic isolation within monophyletic lineages. This metric quantifies the unique evolutionary history at risk, guiding resource allocation toward clades that represent irreplaceable branches of the . As of 2025, future directions in phylogenetic integrate monophyly testing with and , particularly in , where automated pipelines like PhyloPhlAn use to rapidly infer and validate monophyletic groupings from vast microbial assemblies. These advancements enable scalable analysis of uncultured diversity, enhancing the detection of novel clades in environmental samples without manual intervention.

Biological Examples

Mammals, classified as the clade Mammalia, form a monophyletic group originating from a common ancestor approximately 200 million years ago in the . This group encompasses all extant descendants, including the basal monotremes (such as the and echidnas), marsupials (like ), and placentals (such as humans and whales). A key synapomorphy defining Mammalia is the presence of mammary glands, which produce milk for nourishing young and evolved from apocrine-like glands associated with hair follicles in synapsid ancestors. Birds, or Aves, represent a monophyletic clade nested within the theropod dinosaurs, specifically the maniraptoran subgroup, excluding non-avian dinosaurs such as Tyrannosaurus or Triceratops. The common ancestor of modern birds likely lived around 100 million years ago during the Cretaceous, with diversification accelerating after the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction. Synapomorphies include feathers, which originated in theropod ancestors for insulation and display before adapting for flight, along with skeletal modifications like fused clavicles forming the furcula and lightweight hollow bones that facilitate powered flight. Angiosperms, the flowering plants, constitute the largest monophyletic group among land plants, comprising approximately 300,000 species that dominate terrestrial ecosystems. Estimates for their common ancestor range from approximately 140 to 250 million years ago, with fossil evidence supporting an origin, characterized by the synapomorphy of enclosed ovules within ovaries, which protects developing seeds and enables unique to this . This innovation, combined with coevolved pollinators, contributed to their rapid diversification and ecological success. Recent phylogenetic revisions have clarified the monophyly of Amniota, the clade including reptiles, birds, and mammals, stemming from a common ancestor about 310-320 million years ago in the Carboniferous. This group is defined by synapomorphies such as the amniotic egg with extraembryonic membranes. In contrast, the traditional class Reptilia, excluding birds and mammals, is paraphyletic because it omits descendants of the reptilian common ancestor, such as avian dinosaurs. In microbial taxonomy, monophyletic bacterial phyla like Proteobacteria exemplify the application of molecular phylogenetics. Identified through 16S rRNA gene sequencing, Proteobacteria form a robust clade encompassing diverse classes such as Alpha-, Beta-, and Gammaproteobacteria, with a common ancestor diverging around 2.5 billion years ago. This phylum, including pathogens like Escherichia coli and symbionts like Rhizobium, is unified by synapomorphies in ribosomal RNA structure and metabolic pathways, highlighting monophyly in prokaryotes where morphological traits are limited.

References

  1. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/monophyly
  2. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7583691/
  3. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348756207_Monophyletic
  4. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cla.12410
  5. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982219314368
  6. https://www.mn.uio.no/cees/english/services/van-valen/evolutionary-theory/volume-11/vol-11-no-5-pages-307-323-s-l-walsh-the-history-and-semantics-of-the-monophyly-debate.pdf
  7. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261178112_The_Development_of_Phylogenetic_Concepts_in_Hennig%27s_Early_Theoretical_Publications_1947-1966
  8. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12225-021-09971-2
  9. https://www.publish.csiro.au/sb/fulltext/sb13031
  10. https://academic.oup.com/sysbio/article/20/1/63/1639411
  11. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260183695_Defining_and_redefining_monophyly_Haeckel_Hennig_Ashlock_Nelson_and_the_proliferation_of_definitions
  12. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/early-events-in-monocot-evolution/first-evolutionary-classification-of-araceae-a-englers-natural-system/F71CE611FE882D05CC2FD417FF883B1E
  13. https://academic.oup.com/sysbio/article/53/4/653/1648462
  14. https://books.google.com/books/about/Phylogenetic_Systematics.html?id=xsi6QcQPJGkC
  15. https://www.press.uillinois.edu/books/?id=p068140
  16. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cla.12122
  17. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3070835
  18. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3067765
  19. https://academic.oup.com/sysbio/article/71/4/921/5904279
  20. https://d-nb.info/1107018366/34
  21. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/phylogenetic-inference/
  22. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1055790324001891
  23. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cla.12525
  24. https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/reading-a-phylogenetic-tree-the-meaning-of-41956
  25. https://ib.berkeley.edu/courses/bio1b/evolutionfall07/pdfs/Mishler4_Cladistics.pdf
  26. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5052292/
  27. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308343326_Phylogenetic_classifications_are_informative_stable_and_pragmatic_the_case_for_monophyletic_taxa
  28. https://people.uncw.edu/chandlerg/documents/cladisticjargon_000.pdf
  29. https://www.digitalatlasofancientlife.org/learn/systematics/phylogenetics/trees-classification/
  30. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235963039_Paraphyly_Is_Bad_Taxonomy
  31. https://www.depts.ttu.edu/biology/people/Faculty/Rice/home/evolution/lect11_18.html
  32. https://repository.si.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/c046a0ab-f4ee-4c45-814c-07e390091258/content
  33. https://evolution.berkeley.edu/fisheye-view-tree-of-life/what-is-a-fish/
  34. https://ucmp.berkeley.edu/glossary/gloss1phylo.html
  35. https://www2.gwu.edu/~clade/faculty/lipscomb/Cladistics.pdf
  36. https://people.hws.edu/kendrick/paleontology/labs/lab04.html
  37. https://ib.berkeley.edu/courses/bio1b/evolutionfall06/pdfs/Mishler4_Cladistics.pdf
  38. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/425188
  39. http://abacus.bates.edu/acad/depts/biobook/Chap26.pdf
  40. http://phylonames.org/documents/PhyloCode2b.pdf
  41. https://academic.oup.com/sysbio/article/55/1/160/2842921
  42. https://www.sciengine.com/doi/pdf/b9c978e6c20942849fca5d384571aa1b
  43. https://www2.stat.duke.edu/~scs/Projects/Trees/Phylogenetic/MrBayes_manual.pdf
  44. https://www.pdtf.org/edge-index
  45. https://academic.oup.com/sysbio/article/67/6/1025/4972608
  46. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-16366-7
  47. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11450119/
  48. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/monotremata
  49. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.ado4555
  50. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2688910/
  51. https://prumlab.yale.edu/sites/default/files/prum_n_brush_2002.pdf
  52. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2409658122
  53. https://bio.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Introductory_and_General_Biology/General_Biology_1e_%28OpenStax%29/5%253A_Biological_Diversity/26%253A_Seed_Plants/26.3%253A_Angiosperms
  54. http://ndl.ethernet.edu.et/bitstream/123456789/77565/1/2018_Book_TheDawnAngiosperms.pdf
  55. https://academic.oup.com/jxb/article/73/12/3840/6570702
  56. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1693-2
  57. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41396-020-0669-4
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.