Evolutionary grade

Last updated

Cladogram (family tree) of a biological group. The green box (central) may represent an evolutionary grade (paraphyletic), a group united by conservative anatomical and physiological traits rather than phylogeny. The flanking red and blue boxes are clades (i.e., complete monophyletic subtrees). Clade-grade II.svg
Cladogram (family tree) of a biological group. The green box (central) may represent an evolutionary grade (paraphyletic), a group united by conservative anatomical and physiological traits rather than phylogeny. The flanking red and blue boxes are clades (i.e., complete monophyletic subtrees).

A grade is a taxon united by a level of morphological or physiological complexity. The term was coined by British biologist Julian Huxley, to contrast with clade, a strictly phylogenetic unit. [1]

Contents

Phylogenetics

In order to fully understand evolutionary grades, one must first get a better understanding of phylogenetics: the study of the evolutionary history and relationships among or within groups of organisms. These relationships are determined by phylogenetic inference methods that focus on observed heritable traits, such as DNA sequences, protein amino acid sequences, or morphology. The result of such an analysis is a phylogenetic tree—a diagram containing a hypothesis of relationships that reflects the evolutionary history of a group of organisms. [2]

Definition of an evolutionary grade

An evolutionary grade is a group of species united by morphological or physiological traits, that has given rise to another group that has major differences from the ancestral group's condition, and is thus not considered part of the ancestral group, while still having enough similarities that we can group them under the same clade.[ clarification needed ] The ancestral group will not be phylogenetically complete (i.e. is not a clade), and so will represent a paraphyletic taxon.[ citation needed ]

The most commonly cited example is that of reptiles. In the early 19th century, the French naturalist Latreille was the first to divide tetrapods into the four familiar classes of amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. [3] In this system, reptiles are characterized by traits such as laying membranous or shelled eggs, having skin covered in scales or scutes, and having a 'cold-blooded' metabolism. However, the ancestors of mammals and birds also had these traits and so birds and mammals can be said to "have evolved from reptiles", making the reptiles, when defined by these traits, a grade rather than a clade. [4] In microbiology, taxa that are thus seen as excluded from their evolutionary grade parent group are called taxa in disguise. [5]

Paraphyletic taxa will often, but not always, represent evolutionary grades. In some cases paraphyletic taxa are united simply by not being part of any other groups, and give rise to so-called wastebasket taxa which may even be polyphyletic.

Grades in systematics

The genus Australopithecus is ancestral to Homo, yet actively in use in palaeoanthropology. Australopithecus sediba.JPG
The genus Australopithecus is ancestral to Homo , yet actively in use in palaeoanthropology.

The traditional Linnaean way of defining taxa is through the use of anatomical traits. When the actual phylogenetic relationship is unknown, well defined groups sometimes turn out to be defined by traits that are primitive rather than derived. In Linnaean systematics, evolutionary grades are accepted in higher taxonomic ranks, though generally avoided at family level and below. In phylogenetic nomenclature evolutionary grades (or any other form of paraphyly) are not accepted. [6]

Where information about phylogenetic relationships is available, organisms are preferentially grouped into clades. Where data is lacking, or groups of uncertain relationship are to be compared, the cladistic method is limited and grade provides a useful tool for comparing organisms. This is particularly common in palaeontology, where fossils are often fragmentary and difficult to interpret. Thus, traditional palaeontological works are often using evolutionary grades as formal or informal taxa, including examples such as labyrinthodonts, anapsids, synapsids, dinosaurs, ammonites, eurypterids, lobopodians and many of the more well known taxa of human evolution. Organizing organisms into grades rather than strict clades can also be very useful to understand the evolutionary sequence behind major diversification of both animals [7] and plants. [8]

Evolutionary grades, being united by gross morphological traits, are often eminently recognizable in the field. While taxonomy seeks to eliminate paraphyletic taxa, such grades are sometimes kept as formal or informal groups on the basis of their usefulness for laymen and field researchers. [6] In bacteriology, the renaming of species or groups that turn out to be evolutionary grades is kept to a minimum to avoid misunderstanding, which in the case of pathogens could have fatal consequences. When referring to a group of organisms, the term "grade" is usually enclosed in quotation marks to denote its status as a paraphyletic term.

Grades and phylogenetic nomenclature

With the rise of phylogenetic nomenclature, the use of evolutionary grades as formal taxa has come under debate. Under a strict phylogenetic approach, only monophyletic taxa are recognized. [9] This differs from the more traditional approach of evolutionary taxonomy. [10] The difference in approach has led to a vigorous debate between proponents of the two approaches to taxonomy, particularly in well established fields like vertebrate palaeontology and botany. [11] The difference between the statement "B is part of A" (phylogenetic approach) and "B has evolved from A" (evolutionary approach) is, however, one of semantics rather than of phylogeny. Both express the same phylogeny, but the former emphasizes the phylogenetic continuum while the latter emphasizes a distinct shift in anatomy or ecology in B relative to A.

Examples

Related Research Articles

Cladistics is an approach to biological classification in which organisms are categorized in groups ("clades") based on hypotheses of most recent common ancestry. The evidence for hypothesized relationships is typically shared derived characteristics (synapomorphies) that are not present in more distant groups and ancestors. However, from an empirical perspective, common ancestors are inferences based on a cladistic hypothesis of relationships of taxa whose character states can be observed. Theoretically, a last common ancestor and all its descendants constitute a (minimal) clade. Importantly, all descendants stay in their overarching ancestral clade. For example, if the terms worms or fishes were used within a strict cladistic framework, these terms would include humans. Many of these terms are normally used paraphyletically, outside of cladistics, e.g. as a 'grade', which are fruitless to precisely delineate, especially when including extinct species. Radiation results in the generation of new subclades by bifurcation, but in practice sexual hybridization may blur very closely related groupings.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Clade</span> Group of a common ancestor and all descendants

In biological phylogenetics, a clade, also known as a monophyletic group or natural group, is a grouping of organisms that are monophyletic – that is, composed of a common ancestor and all its lineal descendants – on a phylogenetic tree. In the taxonomical literature, sometimes the Latin form cladus is used rather than the English form. Clades are the fundamental unit of cladistics, a modern approach to taxonomy adopted by most biological fields.

In biology, phenetics, also known as taximetrics, is an attempt to classify organisms based on overall similarity, usually in morphology or other observable traits, regardless of their phylogeny or evolutionary relation. It is closely related to numerical taxonomy which is concerned with the use of numerical methods for taxonomic classification. Many people contributed to the development of phenetics, but the most influential were Peter Sneath and Robert R. Sokal. Their books are still primary references for this sub-discipline, although now out of print.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Paraphyly</span> Type of taxonomic group

In taxonomy, a grouping is paraphyletic if it consists of the grouping's last common ancestor and most of its descendants, but excludes a few monophyletic subgroups. The grouping is said to be paraphyletic with respect to the excluded subgroups. In contrast, a monophyletic grouping includes a common ancestor and all of its descendants. The terms are commonly used in phylogenetics and in the tree model of historical linguistics. Paraphyletic groups are identified by a combination of synapomorphies and symplesiomorphies. If many subgroups are missing from the named group, it is said to be polyparaphyletic.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Taxon</span> Grouping of biological populations

In biology, a taxon is a group of one or more populations of an organism or organisms seen by taxonomists to form a unit. Although neither is required, a taxon is usually known by a particular name and given a particular ranking, especially if and when it is accepted or becomes established. It is very common, however, for taxonomists to remain at odds over what belongs to a taxon and the criteria used for inclusion. If a taxon is given a formal scientific name, its use is then governed by one of the nomenclature codes specifying which scientific name is correct for a particular grouping.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Amniote</span> Clade of tetrapods including reptiles, birds and mammals

Amniotes belong to the clade Amniota, a clade of tetrapod vertebrates that comprises sauropsids and synapsids. They are distinguished from the other living tetrapod clade—the lissamphibians—by the development of three extraembryonic membranes, thicker and more keratinized skin, and costal respiration.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sauropsida</span> Taxonomic clade

Sauropsida is a clade of amniotes, broadly equivalent to the class Reptilia, though typically used in a broader sense to include extinct stem-group relatives of modern reptiles. The most popular definition states that Sauropsida is the sister taxon to Synapsida, the other clade of amniotes which includes mammals as its only modern representatives. Although early synapsids have historically been referred to as "mammal-like reptiles", all synapsids are more closely related to mammals than to any modern reptile. Sauropsids, on the other hand, include all amniotes more closely related to modern reptiles than to mammals. This includes Aves (birds), which are now recognized as a subgroup of archosaurian reptiles despite originally being named as a separate class in Linnaean taxonomy.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Archosaur</span> Group of diapsids broadly classified as reptiles

Archosauria is a clade of diapsids, with birds and crocodilians as the only living representatives. Archosaurs are broadly classified as reptiles, in the cladistic sense of the term, which includes birds. Extinct archosaurs include non-avian dinosaurs, pterosaurs, and extinct relatives of crocodilians. Modern paleontologists define Archosauria as a crown group that includes the most recent common ancestor of living birds and crocodilians, and all of its descendants. The base of Archosauria splits into two clades: Pseudosuchia, which includes crocodilians and their extinct relatives, and Avemetatarsalia, which includes birds and their extinct relatives.

Evolutionary taxonomy, evolutionary systematics or Darwinian classification is a branch of biological classification that seeks to classify organisms using a combination of phylogenetic relationship, progenitor-descendant relationship, and degree of evolutionary change. This type of taxonomy may consider whole taxa rather than single species, so that groups of species can be inferred as giving rise to new groups. The concept found its most well-known form in the modern evolutionary synthesis of the early 1940s.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Crown group</span> Monophyletic closure of a set of living species

In phylogenetics, the crown group or crown assemblage is a collection of species composed of the living representatives of the collection, the most recent common ancestor of the collection, and all descendants of the most recent common ancestor. It is thus a way of defining a clade, a group consisting of a species and all its extant or extinct descendants. For example, Neornithes (birds) can be defined as a crown group, which includes the most recent common ancestor of all modern birds, and all of its extant or extinct descendants.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Archosauriformes</span> Clade of reptiles

Archosauriformes is a clade of diapsid reptiles encompassing archosaurs and some of their close relatives. It was defined by Jacques Gauthier (1994) as the clade stemming from the last common ancestor of Proterosuchidae and Archosauria. Phil Senter (2005) defined it as the most exclusive clade containing Proterosuchus and Archosauria. Archosauriforms are a branch of archosauromorphs which originated in the Late Permian and persist to the present day as the two surviving archosaur groups: crocodilians and birds.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Rauisuchia</span> Informal group of Triassic archosaurs with pillar-erect posture

"Rauisuchia" is a paraphyletic group of mostly large and carnivorous Triassic archosaurs. Rauisuchians are a category of archosaurs within a larger group called Pseudosuchia, which encompasses all archosaurs more closely related to crocodilians than to birds and other dinosaurs. First named in the 1940s, Rauisuchia was a name exclusive to Triassic archosaurs which were generally large, carnivorous, and quadrupedal with a pillar-erect hip posture, though exceptions exist for all of these traits. Rauisuchians, as a traditional taxonomic group, were considered distinct from other Triassic archosaur groups such as early dinosaurs, phytosaurs, aetosaurs, and crocodylomorphs.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Wastebasket taxon</span> Classification of organisms that do not fit in other classifications

Wastebasket taxon is a term used by some taxonomists to refer to a taxon that has the purpose of classifying organisms that do not fit anywhere else. They are typically defined by either their designated members' often superficial similarity to each other, or their lack of one or more distinct character states or by their not belonging to one or more other taxa. Wastebasket taxa are by definition either paraphyletic or polyphyletic, and are therefore not considered valid taxa under strict cladistic rules of taxonomy. The name of a wastebasket taxon may in some cases be retained as the designation of an evolutionary grade, however.

In phylogenetics, a sister group or sister taxon, also called an adelphotaxon, comprises the closest relative(s) of another given unit in an evolutionary tree.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Plesiomorphy and symplesiomorphy</span> Ancestral character or trait state shared by two or more taxa

In phylogenetics, a plesiomorphy and symplesiomorphy are synonyms for an ancestral character shared by all members of a clade, which does not distinguish the clade from other clades.

Phylogenetic nomenclature is a method of nomenclature for taxa in biology that uses phylogenetic definitions for taxon names as explained below. This contrasts with the traditional approach, in which taxon names are defined by a type, which can be a specimen or a taxon of lower rank, and a description in words. Phylogenetic nomenclature is currently regulated by the International Code of Phylogenetic Nomenclature (PhyloCode).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Evolution of reptiles</span> Origin and diversification of reptiles through geologic time

Reptiles arose about 320 million years ago during the Carboniferous period. Reptiles, in the traditional sense of the term, are defined as animals that have scales or scutes, lay land-based hard-shelled eggs, and possess ectothermic metabolisms. So defined, the group is paraphyletic, excluding endothermic animals like birds that are descended from early traditionally-defined reptiles. A definition in accordance with phylogenetic nomenclature, which rejects paraphyletic groups, includes birds while excluding mammals and their synapsid ancestors. So defined, Reptilia is identical to Sauropsida.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Carphodactylidae</span> Family of lizards

The Carphodactylidae, informally known as the southern padless geckos, are a family of geckos, lizards in the infraorder Gekkota. The family consists of 32 described species in 7 genera, all of which are endemic to Australia. They belong to the superfamily Pygopodoidea, an ancient group of east Gondwanan geckos now only found in Australasia. Despite their well-developed limbs, molecular phylogenies have demonstrated that Carphodactylidae is the sister group to Pygopodidae, a highly specialized family of legless lizards.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Outline of evolution</span>

The following outline is provided as an overview of and topical guide to evolution:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Archelosauria</span> Clade comprising turtles, birds and crocodilians

Archelosauria is a clade grouping turtles and archosaurs and their fossil relatives, to the exclusion of lepidosaurs. The majority of phylogenetic analyses based on molecular data have supported a sister-group relationship between turtles and archosaurs. On the other hand, Archelosauria has not been supported by most morphological analyses, which have instead found turtles to either be descendants of parareptiles, early-diverging diapsids outside of Sauria, or close relatives of lepidosaurs within the clade Ankylopoda.

References

  1. Huxley J. 1959. Clades and grades. In Cain A.J. (ed) Function and taxonomic importance. Systematics Association, London.
  2. "phylogeny". Biology online. Retrieved 15 February 2013.
  3. Latreille, P.A. (1804). Nouveau Dictionnaire à Histoire Naturelle, xxiv; cited in Latreille, P.A. (1825).Familles naturelles du règne animal, exposés succinctement et dans un ordre analytique.
  4. 1 2 Tudge, Colin (2000). The Variety of Life. Oxford University Press. ISBN   0-19-860426-2.
  5. Lan, R; Reeves, PR (2002). "Escherichia coli in disguise: molecular origins of Shigella". Microbes and Infection / Institut Pasteur. 4 (11): 1125–32. doi:10.1016/S1286-4579(02)01637-4. PMID   12361912.
  6. 1 2 Grant, Verne (1998). "Primary Classification and Phylogeny of the Polemoniaceae, with Comments on Molecular Cladistics". American Journal of Botany. 85 (6): 741–752. doi: 10.2307/2446408 . JSTOR   2446408. PMID   21684957.
  7. Sperling, E. A.; Pisani, D.; Peterson, K. J. (1 January 2007). "Poriferan paraphyly and its implications for Precambrian palaeobiology" (PDF). Geological Society, London, Special Publications. 286 (1): 355–368. Bibcode:2007GSLSP.286..355S. doi:10.1144/SP286.25. S2CID   34175521. Archived from the original (PDF) on 9 May 2009. Retrieved 22 August 2012.
  8. Donoghue, Michael J. (1 June 2005). "Key innovations, convergence, and success: macroevolutionary lessons from plant phylogeny" (PDF). Paleobiology. 31 (sp5): 77–93. doi:10.1666/0094-8373(2005)031[0077:KICASM]2.0.CO;2.
  9. Kevin de Queiroz & Jacques Gauthier (1990). "Phylogeny as a central principle in taxonomy: phylogenetic definitions of taxon names". Syst. Zool. 39 (4): 307–322. doi:10.2307/2992353. JSTOR   2992353.
  10. Mayr, Ernst & Bock, W.J. (2002). "Classifications and other ordering systems" (PDF). J. Zool. Syst. Evol. Research. 40 (4): 169–94. doi:10.1046/j.1439-0469.2002.00211.x.
  11. Benton, M. J. (2000). "Stems, nodes, crown clades, and rank-free lists: is Linnaeus dead?". Biological Reviews. 75 (4): 633–648. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.573.4518 . doi:10.1111/j.1469-185X.2000.tb00055.x. ISSN   0006-3231. PMID   11117201. S2CID   17851383. Archived from the original on 5 June 2011.
  12. 1 2 Romer, A.S. & T.S. Parsons. 1977. The Vertebrate Body. 5th ed. Saunders, Philadelphia. (6th ed. 1985)
  13. Wikisource-logo.svg  Huxley, Thomas H. (1870). "Further Evidence of the Affinity between the Dinosaurian Reptiles and Birds". Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London. Vol. 26. pp. 12–31. doi:10.1144/GSL.JGS.1870.026.01-02.08 via Wikisource.
  14. Gibbons, J. Whitfield; Gibbons, Whit (1983). Their Blood Runs Cold: Adventures With Reptiles and Amphibians . Alabama: University of Alabama Press. pp.  164. ISBN   978-0-8173-0135-4.