When is a cladist not a cladist?

Quinn, Aleta

doi:10.1007/s10539-017-9577-z

Cited by 12 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 83 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the present paper I have traced the total evidence argument from Kluge's defense of parsimony to Gatesy's critique of coalescence. The continuous evolution of this argument, together with sociological factors (Quinn 2017), are indicators that proponents of parsimony, simultaneous analysis of character congruence, and concatenation share a set of commitments not shared by other phylogeneticists. It may be helpful to consider those who deploy total evidence arguments as members of a shared paradigm.…”

Section: Cladists On Parsimonymentioning

confidence: 99%

20220112

Quinn¹

2019

Philosophy, Theory, and Practice in Biology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

I analyze recent debates between proponents of concatenation versus coalescence in phylogenetic inference. I argue that concatenation is the latest manifestation of a paradigm weaving through phylogenetics that has focused on a successive series of models thought to be justified by the "principle of total evidence." I analyze the principle of total evidence as the main philosophical strand linking parsimony versus likelihood (1980s), character congruence versus consensus trees (1990s), and concatenation versus coalescence (2000-10s). My hope is to provide a foothold for philosophers to engage with contemporary phylogenetics, in the face of the discipline's bewildering and rapidly expanding array of computational models. The basic idea of total evidence-include all data that is relevant to an analysis, that has signal with respect to the problem at hand-is extremely attractive at an intuitive level. However, the general intuition is less clear in the case that all relevant data are included in the overall study, but no single method employs the total dataset in one inferential step. Moreover, simulation studies demonstrate that there are cases in which excluding some data, even when that data provides signal, leads to a better result by a particular method. Each of these points is explored through analysis of the historical and contemporary debates.

show abstract

Section: Cladists On Parsimonymentioning

confidence: 99%

20220112

Quinn¹

2019

Philosophy, Theory, and Practice in Biology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Suffice to say, one might find definitions for anything—and in any case, Quinn was clear about her motives: “I do not intend to classify individuals, ideas, or research programs. Rather, I clarify distinct things that speakers mean by the term ‘cladist’” (Quinn 2017 , p. 1). Depending on one’s outlook—philosopher, historian, biologist, even sociologist (Hull 1988 )—the definitions might help progress their subject.…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

“… In response to Quinn (Biol Philos, 2017 . 10.1007/s10539-017-9577-z) we identify cladistics to be about natural classifications and their discovery and thereby propose to add an eighth cladistic definition to Quinn’s list, namely the systematist who seeks to discover natural classifications, regardless of their affiliation, theoretical or methodological justifications.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Derived from various permutations of phylogeny, biology, philosophy, methodology, sociology, loyalty etc., Aleta Quinn recently proposed “seven specific definitions that capture distinct contemporary uses” of cladistics (Quinn 2017 , p. 1). Our own efforts, based on the same criteria, yielded a further seven, which we do not intend to bore our readers with here.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We need first to dispense with one misconception. Quinn draws upon a commonly preconceived notion, namely that systematics requires evolution as a prior condition: 1 “What that theoretical foundation may have been [in reference to de Candolle’s view on characters] is not relevant to my points about contemporary systematics, whose conceptual framework presupposes the concept of evolution” (Quinn 2017 , footnote 11). Consider the concept of a cladogram, which everyone might agree is a branching diagram commonly included as part of the results of a cladistic analysis.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A Cladist is a systematist who seeks a natural classification: some comments on Quinn (2017)

Williams

Ebach

2018

Biol Philos

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The role of ontogeny in wood diversity and evolution

Chery

Pace

2021

American J of Botany

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evolutionary developmental biology (evo‐devo) explores the link between developmental patterning and phenotypic change through evolutionary time. In this review, we highlight the scientific advancements in understanding xylem evolution afforded by the evo‐devo approach, opportunities for further engagement, and future research directions for the field. We review evidence that (1) heterochrony—the change in rate and timing of developmental events, (2) homeosis—the ontogenetic replacement of features, (3) heterometry—the change in quantity of a feature, (4) exaptation—the co‐opting and repurposing of an ancestral feature, (5) the interplay between developmental and capacity constraints, and (6) novelty—the emergence of a novel feature, have all contributed to generating the diversity of woods. We present opportunities for future research engagement, which combine wood ontogeny within the context of robust phylogenetic hypotheses, and molecular biology.

show abstract

When is a cladist not a cladist?

Cited by 12 publications

References 83 publications

20220112

20220112

A Cladist is a systematist who seeks a natural classification: some comments on Quinn (2017)

The role of ontogeny in wood diversity and evolution

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About