Autapomorphy

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Phylogenies showing the terminology used to describe different patterns of ancestral and derived character or trait states.[1]

In

apomorphy in relation to a single taxon.[3] The word autapomorphy, introduced in 1950 by German entomologist Willi Hennig, is derived from the Greek words αὐτός, autos "self"; ἀπό, apo "away from"; and μορφή, morphḗ = "shape".[4]

Discussion

Because autapomorphies are only present in a single taxon, they do not convey information about relationship. Therefore, autapomorphies are not useful to infer phylogenetic relationships. However, autapomorphy, like

Tetrapoda, and the closest taxa to Ophidia – as well as their common ancestors – all have two pairs of legs. Therefore, the Ophidia taxon presents an autapomorphy with respect to its absence of legs.[3]

The autapomorphic species concept is one of many methods that scientists might use to define and distinguish

monophyletic species concept" or the "phylospecies" concept and was popularized by D.E. Rosen in 1979. Within this definition, a species is seen as "the least inclusive monophyletic group definable by at least one autapomorphy".[7] While this model of speciation is useful in that it avoids non-monophyletic groupings, it has its criticisms as well. N.I. Platnick, for example, believes the autapomorphic species concept to be inadequate because it allows for the possibility of reproductive isolation and speciation while revoking the "species" status of the mother population. In other words, if a peripheral population breaks away and becomes reproductively isolated, it would conceivably need to develop at least one autapomorphy to be recognized as a different species. If this can happen without the larger mother population also developing a new autapomorphy, then the mother population cannot remain a species under the autapomorphic species concept: it would no longer have any apomorphies not also shared by the daughter species.[8]

Phylogenetic similarities: These phylogenetic terms are used to describe different patterns of ancestral and derived character or trait states as stated in the above diagram in association with synapomorphies.[1]

References

  1. ^
    OCLC 609843839
    .
  2. ^ Futuyma DJ (1998). Evolutionary Biology (3rd ed.). Sinauer Associates, Inc. p. 95.
  3. ^ a b c Appel RD, Feytmans E (2009). "Chapter 3: Introduction of Phylogenetics and its Molecular Aspects". Bioinformatics: a Swiss Perspective (1st ed.). World Scientific Publishing Company.
  4. .
  5. ^ Forey PL (1997). History of the Coelacanth Fishes (1st ed.). Sprinter.
  6. OCLC 60181901
    .
  7. ^ Bull AT (2004). Microbial Diversity and Bioprospecting. ASM Press.
  8. ^ Platnick NI (2001). "From Cladograms to Classifications: The Road to DePhylocode." (PDF). The Systematics Association.
  9. ^ Gauger A (April 17, 2012). "Similarity Happens! The Problem of Homoplasy". Evolution Today & Science News.
  10. OCLC 173520205
    .
  11. .
  12. .
  13. .
  14. .
  15. .
  16. ^ Lipscomb D (1998). "Basics of Cladistic Analysis" (PDF). Washington D.C.: George Washington University.
  17. OCLC 950546876
    .
  18. .
  19. .
  20. .