What do terms like monophyletic, paraphyletic and polyphyletic mean?
17th July 2003
Question
What do terms like monophyletic, paraphyletic and polyphyletic mean?
Answer
These terms are used to describe groupings of organisms, and indicate
the extent to which they can be considered as ``natural groups''.
They are best explained using examples, so consider the following
family-tree diagram:
Aves
/
/
Crocodilia /
Mammalia \ Dinosauria
\ \ /
\ \ /
\ \ /
Synapsida Reptilia
\ /
\ /
\ /
Amniota
Here are examples of all three types of group:
- Consider the group consisting of all the animals in this diagram
- that is, Amniota. This group is
monophyletic because it consists of a single animal together
with all of its descendants. The Dinosauria, including the
modern birds, is another monophyletic group, sometimes defined
as the most recent common ancestor of Igunanodon and
Megalosaurus together with all its descendants.
Monophyletic groups are also called clades, and are
generally considered as the only ``natural'' kind of group.
They are very important in phylogenetic classification.
- Now consider the group consisting of the non-avian dinosaurs
(which is what people usually mean by the informal term
``dinosaurs''). This is a paraphyletic group, because it
can't be defined simply as ``this animal plus all its
descendants'', but must be described as one clade minus
another: in this case, Dinosauria minus Aves.
The ``non-avian dinosaurs'' make up a singly paraphyletic
group because only one clade need be omitted from its base
definition.
Groups may also be doubly paraphyletic, thrice paraphyletic,
etc., depending on how many sub-clades they omit.
- Finally, consider the group of ``warm-blooded animals'', which
consists of Mammalia and Aves.
This is a polyphyletic group - a totally unnatural assemblage
- because it can't even be expressed as a paraphyletic group,
that is, a clade minus one or more of its subclades. Such
groups are not used at all in phylogenetic work since they are
a purely artificial construct. In terms of common descent, a
``warm-blooded animals'' grouping makes no more sense than a
Synapsida-plus-Crocodilia group - though this is not to say
the notion of a warm-blooded group may not be useful in some
informal discussions.
So far, so straightforward. The only wrinkle in this scheme is that
some workers use the word ``monophyletic'' in a sense that includes
what we have described here as paraphyletic groups. These people then
use ``holophyletic'' to describe what are usually called monophyletic
groups. It's tempting in the face of this ambiguity just to abandon
the word ``monophyletic'' and use a holophyletic/paraphyletic
dichotomy, but this terminological abuse is probably not widespread
enough to merit such extreme measures. It's just something to be on
the watch for.
Because clades are so important, there is common notation for
specifying them (taken from the Phylocode: see note 9.4.1 in
http://www.ohiou.edu/phylocode/art9.html).
- Clade(A+B) is a node-based definition
meaning ``the most recent common ancestor of A and B, together
with all its descendents'', or equivalently, ``the least
inclusive clade containing A and B''.
This may be extended to forms such as Clade(A+B+C),
Clade(A+B+C+D), etc., in the obvious way.
For example, Neosauropoda is defined as
Clade(Saltasaurus + Diplodocus), that is, the
most recent common ancestor of Saltasaurus and
Diplodocus together with all its descendants. And
Eutitanosauria, the ``true titanosaurs'' can be defined as
Clade(Saltasaurus + Argyrosaurus +
Lirainosaurus).
- Clade(A<--B) is a stem-based definition
meaning ``A together with everything that shares a more recent
common ancestor with A than with B''.
This too may be extended into forms such as Clade(A<--B, C)
For example, Coelurosauria is often defined as
Clade(Neornithes <-- Allosaurus),
that is, modern birds and everything sharing a more recent
common ancestor with them than with Allosaurus.
And Eusauropoda, the group of ``true sauropods'', is defined
essentially by listing a lot of taxa that are not included
in it, as Clade(Saltasaurus <-- Barapasaurus,
Ohmdenosaurus, Vulcanodon,
Zizhongosaurus).
Stem-based clades are useful for neatly partitioning a
node-based clade. For example, within the Avetheropoda,
which is defined as Clade(Neornithes + Allosaurus), the
two subgroups are the Carnosauria, defined as
Clade(Allosaurus <-- Neornithes), and the
Coelurosauria, defined as its complement: Clade(Neornithes
<-- Allosaurus).
- Clade(X in A) is an apomorphy-based definition
meaning ``the first species to possess character X
synapomorphic with that in A, together with all its
decendants.''
Whatever the hell that means.
These notations are not standard in formal technical literature, but
appear frequently on the Dinosaur Mailing List.
It's unfortunate that this notation is so clumsy. The following,
more concise, alternative notation is sometimes used (notably in Mike
Keesey's admirable
Dinosauricon):
- {A+B} is equivalent to Clade(A+B)
- {A>B} is equivalent to Clade(A<--B).
(Yes, the arrow points in the opposite direction. That's a
tragedy, but we seem to be stuck with it.)
- There's no way to indicate apomorphy-based definitions, but
that's OK because no-one ever uses these anyway.
- {A-B} can be used, in the absence of the prejuducial word
``Clade'' in the notation, to indicate the paraphyletic group
formed by removing the clade B from the enclosing clade A.
Mildly naughty, but pragmatic.
As examples of this last, we might describe the informal grouping
``non-avian dinosaurs'' as {Dinosauria-Aves}, and the ``traditional
reptiles'' as {Reptilia-Aves}.