.png){kind=icon}
Return
About nothing
.png){kind=icon}
PRE
AI
DOI：10.1111/cla.12050.png)
.png){kind=icon}
Original request for help.png){kind=icon}
Share.png){kind=icon}
Save
Abstract
En 中文
In light of recent terminological controversy, this article reviews cladistic conceptions of character states coded as absences, symplesiomorphies, and secondary losses. The first section addresses absence as a question of ontology vs. epistemology. The second and third sections address the evidentiary status of symplesiomorphy in cladistics, the fourth contrasts primitive absence with secondary loss, and the fifth clarifies the meaning of grouping. While secondary losses (reversals) are often synapomorphies, symplesiomorphies (absent or otherwise) have no evidentiary import to cladistic hypotheses of relationship. Thus, we argue that identifying symplesiomorphic character states as homologous is conceptually vacuous, because they are either synapomorphies (homologues) of more inclusive taxa, or complementary absences that unite no group.
Keywords:
TAXIC HOMOLOGY
PHYLOGENY
EVOLUTION
Journal
IF:
6.2
Papers:
994
Citations:
3.9K
Organization
Cited Papers
.png){kind=icon}
ShareSave
ShareSaveShareSaveShareSaveShareSaveShareSave
ShareSaveShareSave
View more