ISSN 2415-8860 (Online), ISSN 0372-4123 (Print)
logoUkrainian Botanical Journal
  • 1 of 13
Up
Ukr. Bot. J. 2016, 73(4): 319–332
https://doi.org/10.15407/ukrbotj73.04.319
General Issues, Reviews and Discussions

Macrosystematics of Didymodon sensu lato (Pottiaceae, Bryophyta) using an analytic key and information theory

Zander R.H.
Abstract

Evolutionary trees (caulograms) and phylogenetic cladograms for both morphological and molecular analyses of certain species in the moss genus Didymodon (Pottiaceae, Bryophyta) were compared. A new two-step macrosystematic (macroevolutionary systematics) method of calculating statistical support for both linear order and lineage direction of evolution is introduced. This involves clustering of taxa in sets by minimization of redundancy using cladograms and minimum parsimony, then building an often-branched linear model by maximization of information on gradual evolution by ordering species through adding informational bits for advanced traits and subtracting them for reversals. Cladistic analysis is considered to be similar to cryptographic code-breaking, with that code key then used for model-building following theory. Very high Bayesian support was computed for lineages in the morphological analyses, which stand up well to high support for past molecular studies. The caulogram allowed for predictions not possible with cladograms. The importance of using information on both shared and serial descent is discussed.

Keywords: analytic key, cladogram, classification, evolution, information theory, macrosystematics, paraphyly, phylogenetics, Didymodon, Pottiaceae

Full text: PDF (Eng) 740K

References
  1. Assis L.C.S., Rieppel O. Cladistics, 2010, 26: 1–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-0031.2009.00297.x
  2. Bock W.J. Zool. Sci., 2003, 20: 279–289. http://dx.doi.org/10.2108/zsj.20.279
  3. Brooks D.R., Wiley E.O. Evolution as Entropy: Toward a Unified Theory of Biology, Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press, pp. 1988.
  4. Brummitt R.K. Taxon, 1997, 46: 723–734. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1224478
  5. Brummitt R.K. Taxon, 2002, 51: 31–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1554961
  6. Brummitt R.K. Taxon, 2003, 52: 803–804. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3647353
  7. Brummitt R.K. Taxon, 2006, 55: 268–269. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/25065576
  8. Crawford D.J. Taxon, 2010, 59: 1413–1423.
  9. Farjon A. Taxon, 2007, 56: 639–641. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/25065847
  10. FNA. The Flora of North America North of Mexico. Flora of North America Editorial Committee, New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 2007, vol. 27.
  11. Good I.J. Biometrika, 1979, 66: 393–396. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/biomet/66.2.393
  12. Hörandl E. Taxon, 2006, 55: 564–570. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/25065631
  13. Hörandl E. Taxon, 2007, 56: 1–5.
  14. Hörandl E. Taxon, 2010, 59: 345–350.
  15. Hörandl E., Emadzade K. Perspectives Pl. Ecol. Evol. Syst., 2012, 14: 310–324. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ppees.2012.04.001
  16. Hörandl E., Stuessy T.F. Taxon, 2010, 59: 1641–1653.
  17. Mayr E., Bock W.J. J. Zool. Evol. Res., 2002, 40: 169–194. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1439-0469.2002.00211.x
  18. McGrayne S.B. The Theory That Would Not Die: How Bayes’ Rule Cracked the Enigma Code. New Haven; Connecticut: Yale Univ. Press, 2011.
  19. Nordal I., Stedje B. Taxon, 2005, 54: 5–6. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/25065296
  20. Popadin K., Polishchuk L.V., Mamirova L., Knorre D., Gunbin K. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 2007, 104: 13390–13395. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0701256104
  21. Rieppel O. Cladistics, 2010, 26: 103–112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-0031.2009.00274.x
  22. Robinson H. Taxon, 1986, 35: 309–311. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1221274
  23. Shannon C., Weaver W. The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Urbana, Illinois: Univ. Illinois Press, 1963.
  24. Sosef M.S.M. Taxon, 1997, 46: 75–85. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1224293
  25. Stuessy T.F., Hörandl E. Cladistics, 2014, 30: 291–293. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cla.12038
  26. Stuessy T.F., König C. Taxon, 2008, 57: 594–601.
  27. Werner O., Jiménez J.A., Ros R.M., Cano M.J., Guerra J. Syst. Bot., 2005, 30: 461–470. http://dx.doi.org/10.1600/0363644054782198
  28. Zander R.H. Bull. Buffalo Soc. Nat. Sci., 1998, 36: 81–115.
  29. Zander R.H. Phyloinformatics, 2004, 2: 1–13.
  30. Zander R.H. Taxon, 2007, 56: 642–644. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/25065848
  31. Zander R.H. Taxon, 2008a, 57: 1182–1188.
  32. Zander R.H. Bryologist, 2008b, 111: 292–301. http://dx.doi.org/10.1639/0007-2745(2008)111[292:SEOTCR]2.0.CO;2
  33. Zander R.H. Anal. Jardín Bot. Madrid, 2009, 66: 263–277.
  34. Zander R.H. Pl. Syst. Evol., 2010a, 286: 69–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00606-010-0281-6
  35. Zander R.H. Biol. Theory, 2010b, 5: 383–394. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/BIOT_a_00063
  36. Zander R.H. Framework for Post-Phylogenetic Systematics, St. Louis: Zetetic Publ., 2013.
  37. Zander R.H. Phytoneuron, 2014a, 2014-78: 1–7.
  38. Zander R.H. Phytoneuron, 2014b, 2014-79: 1–23.
  39. Zander R.H. Phytoneuron, 2014c, 2014-80: 1–19.
  40. Zander R.H. Phytoneuron, 2014d, 2014-110: 1–4.
  41. Zherikhin V.V. Cladistics in palaeontology: Problems and constraints, Proc. of the First Palaeoentomological Conf., Moscow 1998, 1998, pp. 193–199.