Phylogenetic Trees and Classification | Digital Atlas of Ancient Life
Monophyletic taxon: A group composed of a collection of organisms, including a paraphyletic taxon does not include all the descendants of the most recent Polyphyletic taxa are considered "unnatural", and usually are reclassified once. Monophyly, paraphyly, and polyphyly of how to classify monophyletic, paraphyletic, and. Explore Evolution's inaccurate diagram of polyphyletic relationships Therefore, in this diagram, A = monophyletic, B = paraphyletic, and C = polyphyletic.
Monophyletic - Definition, Explanation and Quiz | Biology Dictionary
Similarly, the species before the split between reptiles and mammals are neither mammals nor reptiles, and are no longer referred to as "mammal-like reptiles," despite the use of that term in Explore Evolution.
This shift in terminology invalidates the first sentence of the sidebar since the transitional form would not have been an amphibian, but a stem tetrapod from before the main split shown in the figure above. This also helps clarify the first supposed problem raised by Explore Evolution. The authors cite a paper by Gordon and Olsen authors who are not phylogeneticists and used terminology vaguely. When they make comments like, "no fossils are known that relate directly to the vertebrate transitions to land.
The tetrapods, however, share many traits with those fish, and treating these groups as totally separate is an inaccurate holdover from non-evolutionary classification schemes.
Digital Atlas of Ancient Life
Tetrapods are members of the same lineage as those fish, making the distinction Gordon and Olsen draw very ambiguous. The book with the paper by Gordon and Olsen was published inwith Everett Olson dying inmeaning these chapters were written well over 15 years ago. Paleontologists these days do not speak in terms of direct ancestors — i.
There are 2 problems with such a claim: We are more likely to find something like an 'aunt' or 'cousin' as opposed to a 'parent,' 'child' or 'grandparent'.
Monophyly - Wikipedia
In other words, paleontologists do not claim to find direct ancestors, but instead find what are referred to as collateral ancestors or sister groups. Gordon and Olson working in an old and outdated methodology of viewing fossils as direct ancestors and their claim that no direct ancestor have been named in the vertebrate transition to land is meaningless — no one claims there has been!
The authors of Explore Evolution obscure these methodological revisions either intentionally or through their own outdated understanding and use Gordon and Olsen's claims to discredit recent research of the numerous sister groups that document this transition quite nicely.
These sister groups are identified because they possess traits predicted to be present in the stem groups between modern forms and other known fossils. The sequence of changes in the anatomy of the skull, the legs and the shoulders match the sequence of hierarchal changes predicted by common descent. Explore Evolution 's description of Gordon and Olsen's claims show exactly why it's important to stay up to date with recent research — if you do not, you run the risk of misrepresenting a field and confounding long-outdated remarks with well established data.
Not all descendants of the common ancestor are included Answer to Question 1 B is correct. Monophyletic groups include all organisms in a taxa that share a most common recent ancestor, including the ancestor. If only some members of a group sharing a common recent ancestor are included, then they are considered paraphyletic. Birds, reptiles, and turtles are all thought to share a common ancestor.
Assuming this is true, these groups of animals, including their most common recent ancestor, would be considered what kind of taxonomic group? Polyphyletic Answer to Question 2 A is correct. Since we are considered all types of organisms, this group is considered monophyletic.
If we were to consider only some, such as just birds and turtles, and exclude reptiles, the group would be considered paraphyletic. A polyphyletic group is one that excludes the most common recent ancestor. Branching orders in a monophylogenetic group shows us what?
Amount of evolution C. By actually reading topical zoology and botany case studies, i think that someone gains a lot of useful background knowledge.
A species is not really a real thing. Paleontology and other fields accepts the vague nature of the classification of species.
All life that has ever existed on earth is really one huge messy ring species on the long scale once time is included. Species is one such arbitrary distinction, it is convenient and works on the large scale with living organisms just fine, but breaks down on the finer scale or once deep time is included. Paleontologists accept that a "species" is just an approximation, which is why the finer the scale of the cladistic analysis, you rely on individual specimens and not grouping them into a species.
Ideally all cladistics would be done this way but it is completely impractical, in extant life becasue of huge population numbers in fossils becasue of incomplete specimens causing missing variables.