Κλάδος: Διαφορά μεταξύ των αναθεωρήσεων

Από τη Βικιπαίδεια, την ελεύθερη εγκυκλοπαίδεια
Περιεχόμενο που διαγράφηκε Περιεχόμενο που προστέθηκε
Χωρίς σύνοψη επεξεργασίας
Χωρίς σύνοψη επεξεργασίας
Γραμμή 3: Γραμμή 3:
{{wiktionary}}
{{wiktionary}}


A '''clade'''<ref group=note>(from [[Ancient Greek]] ''{{Polytonic|κλάδος}}'', ''klados'', "branch")</ref> is a group consisting of an organism and all its descendants. In the terms of [[cladistics]], a clade is a single "branch" on the "[[Tree of life (science)|tree of life]]".<ref name=Dupuis>{{cite journal | last=Dupuis | first=Claude | year=1984 | title=Willi Hennig's impact on taxonomic thought | journal=Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics | volume=15 | pages=1–24 | issn=0066-4162}}</ref> The idea that such a "natural group" of organisms should be grouped together and given a [[Taxonomy|taxonomic]] name is central to [[cladistics]]. In [[cladistics]] (which takes its name from the term), clades are the only acceptable units.
A '''clade'''<ref group=note>(from [[Ancient Greek]] ''{{Polytonic|κλάδος}}'', ''klados'', "branch")</ref> is a group consisting of an organism and all its descendants. In the terms of [[cladistics]], a clade is a single "branch" on the "[[Tree of life (science)|tree of life]]".<ref name=Dupuis>{{cite journal | last=Dupuis | first=Claude | year=1984 | title=Willi Hennig's impact on taxonomic thought | journal=Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics | volume=15 | pages=1–24 | issn=0066-4162}}</ref> The idea that such a "clade" of organisms should be grouped together and given a [[Taxonomy|taxonomic]] name is central to [[cladistics]]. In [[cladistics]] (which takes its name from the term), clades are the only acceptable units.


The term was coined (not cladistics, or...?) in 1958 by [[England|English]] biologist [[Julian Huxley]].<ref name=Dupuis/>
The term was coined (not cladistics, or...?) in 1958 by [[England|English]] biologist [[Julian Huxley]].<ref name=Dupuis/>

Έκδοση από την 23:54, 21 Οκτωβρίου 2010

Πρότυπο:Otheruses

Cladogram (family tree) of a biological group. The red and blue boxes represent clades (i.e., complete branches). The green box is not a clade, but rather represents an evolutionary grade, an incomplete group, because the blue clade descends from it, but is excluded.

A clade[note 1] is a group consisting of an organism and all its descendants. In the terms of cladistics, a clade is a single "branch" on the "tree of life".[1] The idea that such a "clade" of organisms should be grouped together and given a taxonomic name is central to cladistics. In cladistics (which takes its name from the term), clades are the only acceptable units.

The term was coined (not cladistics, or...?) in 1958 by English biologist Julian Huxley.[1]

Definitions

Κύριο λήμμα: Phylogenetic definitions
A cladogram of crocodiles, a visual representation of then relationship

Clade and ancestor

A clade is termed monophyletic, meaning it contains one ancestor which can be an organism, population, or species and all its descendants.[note 2][2][3] The term clade refers to the grouping of the ancestor and its living and/or deceased descendants together. The ancestor can be a theoretical or actual species.

Clade definition

Three methods of defining clades are featured in phylogenetic nomenclature: node-, stem-, and apomorphy-based:

  • In node-based definition, clade name A refers to the least inclusive clade containing taxa (or specimens) X, Y, etc., and their common ancestor. The ancestor is the branch point, or node.
  • In stem-based definition, A refers to the most inclusive clade containing X, Y, etc., and their common ancestor, down to where Z branches off below A. Taxa are included between the node of A and down to (but not including) the branching point to Z; that is, the stem of A.
  • In apomorphy-based definition, A refers to the clade identified by an apomorphy (a trait) found in X, Y, etc., and their common ancestor.

In Linnaean taxonomy, clades are defined by a set of traits (apomorphies) unique to the group. This system is basically similar to the apomorphy-based clades of phylogenetic nomenclature. The difference is one of weight: While phylogenetic nomenclature bases the group on an ancestor with a certain trait, Linnaean taxonomy uses the traits themselves to define the group.

Clades as constructs

In cladistics, the clade is a hypothetical construct based on experimental data. Clades are found using multiple (sometimes hundreds) of traits from a number of species (or specimens) and analysing them statistically to find the most likely phylogenetic tree for the group. Although similar in some ways to a biological classification of species, the method is statistical and more open to scrutiny than traditional methods. Although taxonomists use clades as a tool in classification where feasible, the taxonomic "tree of life" is not the same as the cladistic. The traditional genus, family, etc. names are not necessarily clades; though they will often be.

Clade names

In Linnaean systematics, the various groups are ordered into a series of taxonomic ranks (the familiar order, family etc). These ranks will by convention dictate the ending to names for some groups. Clades do not by their nature fit this scheme, and no such restriction exists as to their names in cladistics. There is however a convention for naming more or less inclusive groups, which are given prefixes like crown- or pan-, see Crown group.

Taxonomy and systematics

Early phylogenetic tree by Haeckel, 1866

The idea of "clade" did not exist in pre-Darwinian Linnaean taxonomy, which was based only on morphological similarities between organisms, though many of the better known animal groups in Linnaeus' original Systema Naturae (notably among the vertebrate groups) represent clades. With the publication of Darwin's theory of evolution in 1859, taxonomy gained a theoretical basis, and the idea that systematic units represent branches on the evolutionary tree of life was born. In the century and a half since then, taxonomists have worked to make the taxonomic system reflect evolution. However, as the Tree of Life branches rather unevenly, the hierarchy of the Linnaean system does not always lend itself well to represent clades. When it comes to naming, cladistics and Linnaean taxonomy are not always compatible. Particularly higher level taxons in Linnaean taxonomy often represent evolutionary grades rather than clades, i.e. clades where one or two sub-branches have been excluded. Typical examples include bony fishes, who include the ancestor of tetrapods, and reptiles, ancestral to both birds and mammals.[note 3]

In phylogenetic nomenclature, clades can be nested at any level, and do not have to be slotted into a rank in an overall hierarchy. In contrast, the Linnaean units of "order", "class" etc. must be used when naming a new taxon. As there are only seven formal levels to the Linnaean system (whereof species is the lowest), there is a finite amount of sub- and super-units that can be applied. As taxonomic trees (cladograms) become more detailed, some researchers intimately familiar with the topography of the trees they are working with have opted to dispense with the ranks all together, using clade names without Linnaean ranks. The preference of one system over the other is mainly one of application: Cladistics give details, but require intimate knowledge; the Linnaean system gives a well ordered overview, at the expense of details of the phylogenetic tree.

In a few instances, the Linnaean system has actually impeded our understanding of the phylogeny and broad evolutionary patterns. The best known example is the interpretation of the strange fossils of the Burgess Shale and the subsequent idea of a "Cambrian Explosion" [4] With the application of cladistics, and the rejection of any significance of the concept of Phyla, the confusion of the late 20th century over the Burgess animals has been resolved. It appears there never was an "explosion" of major bauplans with subsequent extinctions.[5] The seemingly weird critters themselves have been found to be representatives of a group, the Lobopodia, that includes arthropods, water bears and velvet worms.[6]

In most instances the two systems are not at odds, however. The cladistic statement, that the clade Lobopodia contains (among others) the Arthropoda, Tardigrada and Onychophora, is factually identical to the Linnaean evolutionary statement that the group Lobopodia is ancestral to the phyla Arthropoda, Tardigrada and Onychophora. The difference is one of semantics rather than phylogeny.

See also

Notes

  1. (from Ancient Greek Πρότυπο:Polytonic, klados, "branch")
  2. A semantic case has been made that the name should be "holophyletic," but this term has not yet acquired widespread use. For more information, see holophyly
  3. The term "reptile" is here to be understood as traditionally defined, e.g. Romer & Parson (1985): The Vertebrate Body. (6th ed.) Saunders, Philadelphia. There are other (cladistic) definitions of "reptile" that exclude the first amniotes and the synapsid line, see Sauropsida.

References

  1. 1,0 1,1 Dupuis, Claude (1984). «Willi Hennig's impact on taxonomic thought». Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 15: 1–24. ISSN 0066-4162. 
  2. «The PhyloCode, Chapter 1». International Society for Phylogenetic Nomenclature. 2009. Ανακτήθηκε στις 23 Ιανουαρίου 2010. 
  3. Envall, Mat S. (2008). «On the difference between mono-, holo-, and paraphyletic groups: a consistent distinction of process and pattern». Biological Journal of the Linnaean Society 94: 217. doi:10.1111/j.1095-8312.2008.00984.x. 
  4. Budd, G.E.; Jensen, S. (2000). «A critical reappraisal of the fossil record of the bilaterian phyla». Biological Reviews 75 (02): 253–295. doi:10.1017/S000632310000548X. http://journals.cambridge.org/production/action/cjoGetFulltext?fulltextid=624. 
  5. Erwin, D.H. (2007). «Disparity: Morphological Pattern And Developmental Context». Palaeontology 50: 57. doi:10.1111/j.1475-4983.2006.00614.x. 
  6. Whittle, R. J.; Gabbott, S. E.; Aldridge, R. J.; Theron, J. (2009). «An Ordovician Lobopodian from the Soom Shale Lagerstätte, South Africa». Palaeontology 52: 561–567. doi:10.1111/j.1475-4983.2009.00860.x. 

External links

Πρότυπο:Phylo Πρότυπο:Evolution