Wikipedia preview

出典(authority):フリー百科事典『ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』「2016/01/07 12:21:40」(JST)

wiki en

Phylogenetic tree, the blue (left) and red (right) groups represent monophyletic groups, the green group (centre) being paraphyletic.

Cladogram of the primates, showing a monophyletic group (the simians, in yellow), a paraphyletic group (the prosimians, in blue, including the red patch), and a polyphyletic group (the night-active primates, the lorises and the tarsiers, in red)

Phylogenetic groups: A monophyletic taxon contains a common ancestor and all of its descendants. Diagram: in yellow, the group of "reptiles and birds" A paraphyletic taxon contains its most recent common ancestor, but does not contain all the descendants of that ancestor. Diagram: in cyan, the reptiles A polyphyletic taxon does not contain the most recent common ancestor of all its members. Diagram: in red, the group of all warm-blooded animals is polyphyletic.

In common cladistic usage, a monophyletic group is a taxon (group of organisms) which forms a clade, meaning that it consists of an ancestral species and all its descendants. The term is synonymous with the uncommon term holophyly. Monophyletic groups are typically characterized by shared derived characteristics (synapomorphies).

Monophyly is contrasted with paraphyly and polyphyly, as shown in the second diagram. A paraphyletic group consists of all of the descendants of a common ancestor minus one or more monophyletic groups. Thus, a paraphyletic group is 'nearly' monophyletic (hence the prefix 'para', meaning 'near' or 'alongside'.) A polyphyletic group is characterized by convergent features or habits (for example, night-active primates, fruit trees, aquatic insects); the features by which the group is differentiated from others are not inherited from a common ancestor.

These definitions have taken some time to be accepted. When the cladistic school of thought became mainstream in the 1960s, several alternative definitions were in use. Indeed, taxonomists sometimes used terms without defining them, leading to confusion in the early literature,^[1] a confusion which persists.^[2]

Definitions

On the broadest scale, definitions fall into two groups.

Willi Hennig (1966:148) defined monophyly as groups based on synapomorphy (in contrast to paraphyletic groups, based on symplesiomorphy, and polyphyletic groups, based on convergence). Some authors have sought to define monophyly to include paraphyly as any two or more groups sharing a common ancestor.^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5] However, this broader definition encompasses both monophyletic and paraphyletic groups as defined above. Therefore, most scientists today restrict the term "monophyletic" to refer to groups consisting of all the descendants of one (hypothetical) common ancestor.^[1] However, when considering taxonomic groups such as genera and species, the most appropriate nature of their common ancestor is unclear. Assuming that it would be one individual or mating pair is unrealistic for sexually reproducing species, which are by definition interbreeding populations.^[6]

Monophyly and associated terms are restricted to discussions of taxa, and are not necessarily accurate when used to describe what Hennig called tokogenetic relationships—now referred to as genealogies. Some argue that using a broader definition, such as a species and all its descendants, does not really work to define a genus.^[6] According to D. M. Stamos, a satisfactory cladistic definition of a species or genus is impossible because many species (and even genera) may form by "budding" from an existing species, leaving the parent species paraphyletic; or the species or genera may be the result of hybrid speciation.^[7]

References

^ ^a ^b Hennig, Willi; Davis, D. (Translator); Zangerl, R. (Translator) (1999) [1966]. Phylogenetic Systematics (Illinois Reissue ed.). Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois. pp. 72–77. ISBN 0-252-06814-9.
^ ^a ^b Aubert, D. 2015. A formal analysis of phylogenetic terminology: Towards a reconsideration of the current paradigm in systematics. Phytoneuron 2015-66:1–54.
^ Colless, Donald H. (March 1972). "Monophyly". Systematic Zoology (Society of Systematic Biologists) 21 (1): 126–128. doi:10.2307/2412266. JSTOR 2412266.
^ Envall, Mats (2008). "On the difference between mono-, holo-, and paraphyletic groups: a consistent distinction of process and pattern". Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 94: 217. doi:10.1111/j.1095-8312.2008.00984.x.
^ Ashlock, Peter D. (March 1971). "Monophyly and Associated Terms". Systematic Zoology (Society of Systematic Biologists) 20 (1): 63–69. doi:10.2307/2412223. JSTOR 2412223.
^ ^a ^b Simpson, George (1961). Principles of Animal Taxonomy. New York: Columbia University Press. ISBN 0-231-02427-4.
^ Stamos, D.N. (2003). The species problem : biological species, ontology, and the metaphysics of biology. Lanham, Md. [u.a.]: Lexington Books. pp. 261–268. ISBN 0739105035.

External links

Abbey, Darren (1994–2006). "Graphical explanation of basic phylogenetic terms". University of California, Berkeley. Retrieved 15 January 2010.
Carr, Steven M. (2002). "Concepts of monophyly, polyphyly & paraphyly". Memorial University. Retrieved 15 January 2010.
Hyvönen, Jaako (2005). "Monophyly, consensus, compromise" (pdf). University of Helsinki. Retrieved 15 January 2010.

English Journal

The complete mitochondrial genome of lesser long-tailed Hamster Cricetulus longicaudatus (Milne-Edwards, 1867) and phylogenetic implications.

Zhang Z1, Sun T1, Kang C2, Liu Y3, Liu S3, Yue B2, Zeng T2.
Mitochondrial DNA.Mitochondrial DNA.2016 Mar;27(2):1303-4. doi: 10.3109/19401736.2014.945567. Epub 2014 Aug 4.
The complete mitochondrial genome sequence of Cricetulus longicaudatus (Rodentia Cricetidae: Cricetinae) was determined and was deposited in GenBank (GenBank accession no. KM067270). The mitochondrial genome of C. longicaudatus was 16,302 bp in length and contained 13 protein-coding genes, 2 ribos
PMID 25090399

The complete mitochondrial genome of Tanakia lanceolata (Cypriniformes: Cyprinidae).

Xu X1,2, Cao X1,2, Zhu Y1,2.
Mitochondrial DNA.Mitochondrial DNA.2016 Mar;27(2):867-8. doi: 10.3109/19401736.2014.919480. Epub 2014 May 27.
Bitterling Tanakia lanceolata is a small sized freshwater fish species. The unique reproductive behavior makes bitterlings monophyletic. In this study, the complete mitochondrial genome of T. lanceolata is sequenced to be 16,607 bp in length, including 13 protein-coding genes, 2 ribosomal RNAs, 22
PMID 24865912

Analysis of the genetic structure of allopatric populations of Lutzomyia umbratilis using the period clock gene.

de Souza Freitas MT1, Ríos-Velasquez CM2, da Silva LG1, Lima Costa CR Jr1, Marcelino A1, Leal-Balbino TC3, Balbino Vde Q4, Pessoa FA5.
Acta tropica.Acta Trop.2016 Feb;154:149-54. doi: 10.1016/j.actatropica.2015.11.014. Epub 2015 Dec 2.
In South America, Lutzomyia umbratilis is the main vector of Leishmania guyanensis, one of the species involved in the transmission of American tegumentary leishmaniasis. In Brazil, L. umbratilis has been recorded in the Amazon region, and an isolated population has been identified in the state of P
PMID 26655040

Japanese Journal

Molecular identification of seven species of the genus Stigmaeopsis (Acari: Tetranychidae) and preliminary attempts to establish their phylogenetic relationship