The implications of congruence in Menidia
The implications of congruence in Menidia
复制标题
DOI：
10.1093/sysbio/30.3.351
复制
发表时间：
1981-09
影响因子：
6.5
通讯作者：
M. F. Mickevich;J. Farris
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
M. F. Mickevich;J. Farris
从生物化学和形态学研究中获得的系统结果之间的差异长期以来一直是争议的来源。“生物化学系统学”的支持者倾向于将差异视为分子信息优越性的证据，而其他系统学家往往持相反的观点。Mickevich和约翰逊（1976）提供了一个解决方案，在不否认任何证据来源的价值的情况下解决了这一争议。在一项对斑头雁属Menidia的研究中，他们发现，结果的差异主要是由于所使用的表型分析方法的人为因素造成的，而且当进行遗传分析时，这两种类型的数据并没有显示出实质性的冲突。米克维奇和约翰逊强调了他们的发现与进化现象研究方法选择的相关性，而科利斯（Colless，1980）则将同样的结果解释为主要是对表型分类方法的批评。为捍卫这种类型的分类法，他反对米克维奇和约翰逊的计算的几个方面，并提出了新的表型分析和评价的一致性进行的方法完全不同的米克维奇和约翰逊。他认为，表型的结果并不比系统发育的差异更大，并得出结论，没有理由拒绝表型分类，有利于系统发育systematics.Colless的许多索赔有关的数据，瓦格纳计划，表型缩放和聚类技术，主要是技术，似乎主要是为了播种混乱。然而，他关于评估一致性的观点揭示了表型分类方法的一个深刻缺陷：在衡量分组的不一致性时，没有考虑支持证据的强度，而分组的一致性本身被当作一个目的来追求，而没有考虑分类与字符的关系。我们将证明，米克维奇和约翰逊的原始结论是正确的，不受科利斯的技术异议的影响，但我们也将讨论一个更一般的话题，
Differences between systematic re-sults obtained from biochemical and morphological studies were long a source of controversy. Proponents of" Biochemical Systematics" were inclined to regard discrepancies as evidence of the superiority of molecular information, while other systematists often took the opposite view. Mickevich and Johnson (1976) provided a solution that resolved the controversy without denying the value of either source of evidence. In a study of the atherinid genus Menidia they showed that differences in results were largely an ar-tifact of the phenetic methods of analysis that had been used, and that the two types of data display no substantial conflict when analyzed phylogenetically. While Mickevich and Johnson emphasized the relevance of their findings to choice of methods for the study of evolutionary phenomena, Colless (1980) interprets those same results as primarily a criticism of the phenetic approach to classification. Defending that type of taxonomy, he objects to several aspects of Mickevich and Johnson's calculations and presents new phenetic analyses and evaluations of congruence performed by methods quite different from those of Mickevich and Johnson. He argues that phenetic results are no more disparate than phylogenetic ones and concludes that there are no grounds for rejecting phenetic classification in favor of phylogenetic systematics.Many of Colless' claims-concerning the data, Wagner programs, and phenetic scaling and clustering techniques-are mostly technical and seem designed primarily to sow confusion. His views on assessing congruence, however, reveal a profound defect in the phenetic approach to classification: incongruence of grouping is measured without consideration of strength of supporting evidence, and congruence" of grouping is pursued as an end in itself, without regard for the relationship of classifications to characters. We will show that the original conclusions of Mickevich and Johnson are correct and are unaffected by Colless' technical objections, but we shall also discuss a topic of far more general inter-