GetWiki

{{Short description|Type of taxonomic group}}{{Use dmy dates|date=November 2019}}File:Clade-grade II.svg|thumb|300px|In this phylogenetic tree, the green group is paraphyletic; it is composed of a common ancestor (the lowest green vertical stem) and some of its descendants, but it excludes the blue group (a monophyletic group) which diverged from the green group.]]Paraphyly is a taxonomic term describing a grouping that consists of the grouping's last common ancestor and some but not all of its descendant lineages. The grouping is said to be paraphyletic with respect to the excluded subgroups. In contrast, a monophyletic grouping (a clade) includes a common ancestor and all of its descendants.The terms are commonly used in phylogenetics (a subfield of biology) and in the tree model of historical linguistics. Paraphyletic groups are identified by a combination of synapomorphies and symplesiomorphies. If many subgroups are missing from the named group, it is said to be polyparaphyletic.The term received currency during the debates of the 1960s and 1970s accompanying the rise of cladistics, having been coined by zoologist Willi Hennig to apply to well-known taxa like Reptilia (reptiles), which is paraphyletic with respect to birds. Reptilia contains the last common ancestor of reptiles and all descendants of that ancestor except for birds. Other commonly recognized paraphyletic groups include fish, monkeys, and lizards.BOOK, Romer, A. S., 1949, The Vertebrate Body, W.B. Saunders, 1970, 4th, {{page needed|date=January 2021}}

Etymology

The term paraphyly, or paraphyletic, derives from the two Ancient Greek words {{wikt-lang|grc|παρά}} ({{grc-transl|παρά}}), meaning "beside, near", and {{wikt-lang|grc|φῦλον}} ({{grc-transl|φῦλον}}), meaning "genus, species",BOOK, Abrégé du dictionnaire grec français, Bailly, Anatole, 1 January 1981, Hachette, 978-2-01-003528-9, Paris, 461974285, WEB,weblink Greek-french dictionary online, Bailly, Anatole, www.tabularium.be, 8 March 2018, and refers to the situation in which one or several monophyletic subgroups of organisms (e.g., genera, species) are left apart from all other descendants of a unique common ancestor.Conversely, the term monophyly, or monophyletic, builds on the Ancient Greek prefix {{wikt-lang|grc|μόνος}} ({{grc-transl|μόνος}}), meaning "alone, only, unique", and refers to the fact that a monophyletic group includes organisms consisting of all the descendants of a unique common ancestor.By comparison, the term polyphyly, or polyphyletic, uses the Ancient Greek prefix {{wikt-lang|grc|πολύς}} ({{grc-transl|πολύς}}), meaning "many, a lot of", and refers to the fact that a polyphyletic group includes organisms arising from multiple ancestral sources.

Phylogenetics

File:Monophyly, paraphyly, polyphyly.svg|thumb|upright=1.8|Cladogram of the primates, showing a monophyly (the simians, in yellow), a paraphyly (the prosimians, in blue, including the red patch), and a polyphyly (the night-active primates, the lorises and the tarsiertarsier

In cladistics

{{further|Cladistics}}Groups that include all the descendants of a common ancestor are said to be monophyletic. A paraphyletic group is a monophyletic group from which one or more subsidiary clades (monophyletic groups) are excluded to form a separate group. Philosopher of science Marc Ereshefsky has argued that paraphyletic taxa are the result of anagenesis in the excluded group or groups.BOOK,weblink Handbook of Plant Science, 978-0-470-05723-0, Roberts, Keith, 10 December 2007, John Wiley & Sons, A cladistic approach normally does not grant paraphyletic assemblages the status of "groups", nor does it reify them with explanations, as in cladistics they are not seen as the actual products of evolutionary events.Williams, D. M. and Ebach. M. C. 2020. Cladistics: a guide to biological classification. Cambridge University Press.A group whose identifying features evolved convergently in two or more lineages is polyphyletic (Greek πολύς [polys], "many"). More broadly, any taxon that is not paraphyletic or monophyletic can be called polyphyletic. Empirically, the distinction between polyphyletic groups and paraphyletic groups is rather arbitrary, since the character states of common ancestors are inferences, not observations.{{citation needed|date=April 2023}}These terms were developed during the debates of the 1960s and 1970s accompanying the rise of cladistics.Paraphyletic groupings are considered problematic by many taxonomists, as it is not possible to talk precisely about their phylogenetic relationships, their characteristic traits and literal extinction.BOOK,weblink The Symbolic Species Evolved, Schilhab, Theresa, Stjernfelt, Frederik, Deacon, Terrence, 2012, Springer, 978-94-007-2335-1, JOURNAL, Villmoare, Brian, 2018, Early Homo and the role of the genus in paleoanthropology, American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 165, 72–89, 10.1002/ajpa.23387, 29380889, free, Related terms are stem group, chronospecies, budding cladogenesis, anagenesis, or 'grade' groupings. Paraphyletic groups are often relics from outdated hypotheses of phylogenic relationships from before the rise of cladistics.JOURNAL, Dominguez, Eduardo, Wheeler, Quentin D., 1997, Forum – Taxonomic Stability is Ignorance, Cladistics, 13, 4, 367–372, 10.1111/j.1096-0031.1997.tb00325.x, 34911226, 55540349, free,

Examples

File:Wasps are Paraphyletic.svg|thumb|upright=1.8|Wasps are paraphyletic, consisting of the clade Apocrita without ants and bees, which are not usually considered to be wasps; the sawflies ("SymphytaSymphytaThe prokaryotes (single-celled life forms without cell nuclei) are a paraphyletic grouping, because they exclude the eukaryotes, a descendant group. Bacteria and Archaea are prokaryotes, but archaea and eukaryotes share a common ancestor that is not ancestral to the bacteria. The prokaryote/eukaryote distinction was proposed by Edouard Chatton in 1937JOURNAL, Jan, Sapp, The prokaryote–eukaryote dichotomy: meanings and mythology, Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews, June 2005, 292–305, 69, 2, 10.1128/MMBR.69.2.292-305.2005, 15944457, 1197417, and was generally accepted after being adopted by Roger Stanier and C.B. van Niel in 1962. The botanical code (the ICBN, now the ICN) abandoned consideration of bacterial nomenclature in 1975; currently, prokaryotic nomenclature is regulated under the ICNB with a starting date of 1 January 1980 (in contrast to a 1753 start date under the ICBN/ICN).BOOK, Biology of the prokaryotes, Joseph W., Lengeler, Gerhart, Drews, Hans Günter, Schlegel, Prokaryotic Diversity and Systematics, E., Stackebrabdt, B., Tindell, W., Ludwig, M., Goodfellow, 1999, Stuttgart, Georg Thieme Verlag, 679, Among plants, dicotyledons (in the traditional sense) are paraphyletic because the group excludes monocotyledons. "Dicotyledon" has not been used as a botanic classification for decades, but is allowed as a synonym of Magnoliopsida.The history of flowering plant classification can be found under History of the classification of flowering plants. Phylogenetic analysis indicates that the monocots are a development from a dicot ancestor. Excluding monocots from the dicots makes the latter a paraphyletic group.{{harvnb|Simpson|2006|pp=139–140}}. "It is now thought that the possession of two cotyledons is an ancestral feature for the taxa of the flowering plants and not an apomorphy for any group within. The 'dicots' ... are paraphyletic ...."Among animals, several familiar groups are not, in fact, clades. The order Artiodactyla (even-toed ungulates) as traditionally defined is paraphyletic because it excludes Cetaceans (whales, dolphins, etc.). Under the ranks of the ICZN Code, the two taxa are separate orders. Molecular studies, however, have shown that the Cetacea descend from artiodactyl ancestors, although the precise phylogeny within the order remains uncertain. Without the Cetaceans the Artiodactyls are paraphyletic.JOURNAL, Maureen A., O'Leary, 2001, The Phylogenetic Position of Cetaceans: Further Combined Data Analyses, Comparisons with the Stratigraphic Record and a Discussion of Character Optimization, American Zoologist, 41, 3, 487–506, 10.1.1.555.8631, 10.1093/icb/41.3.487, free, The class Reptilia is paraphyletic because it excludes birds (class Aves). Under a traditional classification, these two taxa are separate classes. However birds are sister taxon to a group of dinosaurs (part of Diapsida), both of which are "reptiles".Romer, A. S. & Parsons, T. S. (1985): The Vertebrate Body. (6th ed.) Saunders, Philadelphia.Osteichthyes, bony fish, are paraphyletic when circumscribed to include only Actinopterygii (ray-finned fish) and Sarcopterygii (lungfish, etc.), and to exclude tetrapods; more recently, Osteichthyes is treated as a clade, including the tetrapods.JOURNAL, Betancur-R, Ricardo, etal, 2013, The Tree of Life and a New Classification of Bony Fishes, PLOS Currents Tree of Life, 5, Edition 1,weblink 10.1371/currents.tol.53ba26640df0ccaee75bb165c8c26288, 23653398, 3644299, 2027.42/150563,weblink" title="web.archive.org/web/20131013102547weblink">weblink 13 October 2013, free, The "wasps" are paraphyletic, consisting of the narrow-waisted Apocrita without the ants and bees.JOURNAL, Johnson, Brian R., Borowiec, Marek L., Chiu, Joanna C., Lee, Ernest K., Atallah, Joel, Ward, Philip S., 2013, Phylogenomics Resolves Evolutionary Relationships among Ants, Bees, and Wasps, Current Biology, 23, 20, 2058–2062,weblink 24094856, 10.1016/j.cub.2013.08.050, free, 2013CBio...23.2058J, 230835, free, The sawflies (Symphyta) are similarly paraphyletic, forming all of the Hymenoptera except for the Apocrita, a clade deep within the sawfly tree.JOURNAL, Sharkey, M. J., Phylogeny and classification of Hymenoptera, Zootaxa, 2007, 1668, 521–548,weblink Symphyta and Apocrita have long been considered as suborders of Hymenoptera but since recognition of the paraphyletic nature of the Symphyta (Köningsmann 1977, Rasnitsyn 1988) and the advent of cladistic methods the subordinal classification should be avoided. Likewise the woodwasps are thought to be non-monophyletic, forming a grade that is ancestral relative to Apocrita and Orussidae. The traditional hymenopteran classification is faulty, by cladistic criteria, in the same way as pre-cladistic vertebrate classifications in which groups sharing plesiomorphic characterswere recognized as natural, e.g., fishes were once grouped together as 'Pisces', which excluded tetrapods., 10.11646/zootaxa.1668.1.25, Crustaceans are not a clade because the Hexapoda (insects) are excluded. The modern clade that spans all of them is the Tetraconata.JOURNAL, David R. Andrew, 2011, A new view of insect–crustacean relationships II. Inferences from expressed sequence tags and comparisons with neural cladistics, Arthropod Structure & Development, 40, 3, 289–302, 10.1016/j.asd.2011.02.001, 21315832, 2011ArtSD..40..289A, One of the goals of modern taxonomy over the past fifty years has been to eliminate paraphyletic "groups", such as the examples given here, from formal classifications.Schuh, Randall T. "The Linnaean system and its 250-year persistence." The Botanical Review 69, no. 1 (2003): 59.JOURNAL, Brower, Andrew V.Z., Dead on arrival: a postmortem assessment of "phylogenetic nomenclature", 20+ years on, 2020, Cladistics, 36, 6, 627–637, 10.1111/cla.12432, 224927279, free,

Paraphyly in species

Species have a special status in systematics as being an observable feature of nature itself and as the basic unit of classification.JOURNAL, Queiroz, Kevin, Donoghue, Michael J., Phylogenetic Systematics and the Species Problem, Cladistics, December 1988, 4, 4, 317–338, 10.1111/j.1096-0031.1988.tb00518.x, 34949064, 40799805, Some articulations of the phylogenetic species concept require species to be monophyletic, but paraphyletic species are common in nature, to the extent that they do not have a single common ancestor. Indeed, for sexually reproducing taxa, no species has a "single common ancestor" organism. Paraphyly is common in speciation, whereby a mother species (a paraspecies) gives rise to a daughter species without itself becoming extinct.BOOK, James S., Albert, Roberto E., Reis, Historical Biogeography of Neotropical Freshwater Fishes,weblink 28 June 2011, 8 March 2011, University of California Press, 308, 978-0-520-26868-5, Google Books, Research indicates as many as 20 percent of all animal species and between 20 and 50 percent of plant species are paraphyletic.JOURNAL, Ross, Howard A., The incidence of species-level paraphyly in animals: A re-assessment, Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, July 2014, 76, 10–17, 10.1016/j.ympev.2014.02.021, 24583289, JOURNAL, Crisp, M.D., Chandler, G.T., Paraphyletic species, Telopea (journal), Telopea, 1 July 1996, 6, 4, 813–844, 10.7751/telopea19963037,weblink 22 January 2015, free, Accounting for these facts, some taxonomists argue that paraphyly is a trait of nature that should be acknowledged at higher taxonomic levels.BOOK, Framework for Post-Phylogenetic Systematics, Zander, Richard, 2013, Zetetic Publications, Amazon CreateSpace, St. Louis,weblink JOURNAL, Aubert, D., 2015, A formal analysis of phylogenetic terminology: Towards a reconsideration of the current paradigm in systematics, Phytoneuron, 66, 1–54, Cladists advocate a phylogenetic species concept JOURNAL, Nixon, Kevin C., Quentin D., Wheeler, An amplification of the phylogenetic species concept, Cladistics, 6, 3, 1990, 211–23, 10.1111/j.1096-0031.1990.tb00541.x, 84095773, free, that does not consider species to exhibit the properties of monophyly or paraphyly, concepts under that perspective which apply only to groups of species.BOOK, Brower, Andrew V. Z., Randall T., Schuh, 2021, Biological Systematics: principles and applications, 3rd, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York, 978-1-5017-5277-3, They consider Zander's extension of the "paraphyletic species" argument to higher taxa to represent a category errorJOURNAL, Schmidt-Lebuhn, Alexander N., Fallacies and false premises—a critical assessment of the arguments for the recognition of paraphyletic taxa in botany, Cladistics, 28, 2, 2012, 174–87, 10.1111/j.1096-0031.2011.00367.x, 34861757, 83900580, free,

Uses for paraphyletic groups

{{anchor|Cladistics generally discourages paraphyletic groups}}When the appearance of significant traits has led a subclade on an evolutionary path very divergent from that of a more inclusive clade, it often makes sense to study the paraphyletic group that remains without considering the larger clade. For example, the Neogene evolution of the Artiodactyla (even-toed ungulates, like deer, cows, pigs and hippopotamuses - Cervidae, Bovidae, Suidae and Hippopotamidae, the families that contain these various artiodactyls, are all monophyletic groups) has taken place in environments so different from that of the Cetacea (whales, dolphins, and porpoises) that the Artiodactyla are often studied in isolation even though the cetaceans are a descendant group. The prokaryote group is another example; it is paraphyletic because it is composed of two Domains (Eubacteria and Archaea) and excludes (the eukaryotes). It is very useful because it has a clearly defined and significant distinction (absence of a cell nucleus, a plesiomorphy) from its excluded descendants.{{citation needed|date=October 2020}}Also, some systematists recognize paraphyletic groups as being involved in evolutionary transitions, the development of the first tetrapods from their ancestors for example. Any name given to these hypothetical ancestors to distinguish them from tetrapods—"fish", for example—necessarily picks out a paraphyletic group, because the descendant tetrapods are not included.WEB, Kazlev, M.A., White, T., amp, Amphibians, Systematics, and Cladistics,weblink Palaeos website, 16 August 2012, Other systematists consider reification of paraphyletic groups to obscure inferred patterns of evolutionary history.JOURNAL, Patterson, Colin, Morphology and interrelationships of primitive actinopterygian fishes, American Zoologist, 22, 2, 1982, 241–259, 10.1093/icb/22.2.241, free, The term "evolutionary grade" is sometimes used for paraphyletic groups.BOOK, Richard, Dawkins, Richard Dawkins, The Ancestor's Tale, A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Life, Mammal-like Reptiles, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 2004, 978-0-618-00583-3, The Ancestor's Tale, Moreover, the concepts of monophyly, paraphyly, and polyphyly have been used in deducing key genes for barcoding of diverse group of species.JOURNAL, 10.1016/j.gene.2019.143967, 31279710, Diagnosis of mitogenome for robust phylogeny: A case of Cypriniformes fish group, Gene, 713, 143967, 2019, Parhi, J., Tripathy, P.S., Priyadarshi, H., Mandal S.C., Pandey P.K., 195828782,

Independently evolved traits

Current phylogenetic hypotheses of tetrapod relationships imply that viviparity, the production of offspring without the external laying of a fertilized egg, developed independently in the lineages that led to humans (Homo sapiens) and southern water skinks (Eulampus tympanum, a kind of lizard). Put another way, viviparity is a synapomorphy for Theria within mammals, and an autapomorphy for Eulamprus tympanum (or perhaps a synapomorphy, if other Eulamprus species are also viviparous).{{citation needed|date=April 2023}}Groupings based on independently-developed traits such as these examples of viviparity represent examples of polyphyly, not paraphyly.{{citation needed|date=April 2023}}

Not paraphyly

{{further |Convergent evolution}}

• Amphibious fish are polyphyletic, not paraphyletic. Although they appear similar, several different groups of amphibious fishes such as mudskippers and lungfishes evolved independently in a process of convergent evolution in distant relatives faced with similar ecological circumstances.JOURNAL, Kutschera, Ulrich, Elliott, J Malcolm, Do mudskippers and lungfishes elucidate the early evolution of four-limbed vertebrates?, Evolution: Education and Outreach, 26 March 2013, 6, 8, 8, 10.1186/1936-6434-6-8, free,
• Flightless birds are polyphyletic because they independently (in parallel) lost the ability to fly.JOURNAL, Harshman, John, Braun, Edward L., Phylogenomic evidence for multiple losses of flight in ratite birds, PNAS, 2 September 2008, 105, 36, 13462–13467, 10.1073/pnas.0803242105, 18765814, 2533212, etal, 2008PNAS..10513462H, free,
• Animals with a dorsal fin are not paraphyletic, even though their last common ancestor may have had such a fin, because the Mesozoic ancestors of porpoises did not have such a fin, whereas pre-Mesozoic fish did have one.
• Quadrupedal archosaurs are not a paraphyletic group. Bipedal dinosaurs like Eoraptor, ancestral to quadrupedal ones, were descendants of the last common ancestor of quadrupedal dinosaurs and other quadrupedal archosaurs like the crocodilians.

Non-exhaustive list of paraphyletic groups

The following list recapitulates a number of paraphyletic groups proposed in the literature, and provides the corresponding monophyletic taxa.{| class="wikitable sortable"! Paraphyletic taxon !! Excluded clades !! Corresponding monophyletic taxon !! References and notes

Prokaryotes >	Eukaryota >	organism>Cellular organisms	INTRODUCTORY BOTANY: PLANTS, PEOPLE, AND THE ENVIRONMENT>FIRST=LINDA	PAGE=360	YEAR=2008	PUBLISHER=THOMSON CORPORATION, 978-0-03-075453-1,

Protista >	Animalia, Plantae, and Fungi >	Eukaryote>Eukaryota	SCHLEGEL >FIRST1=MARTIN	FIRST2=NORBERT	JOURNAL=ORGANISMS DIVERSITY & EVOLUTION	VOLUME=7	PAGES=166–172	ISSN=1439-6092,

Invertebrates >	Vertebrate>Vertebrata	Animalia	AGASSIZ, LOUIS >AUTHOR-LINK=LOUIS AGASSIZ	URL=HTTPS://BOOKS.GOOGLE.COM/BOOKS?ID=O6FDAGAAQBAJ&PG=PT115	PUBLISHER=COURIER	PAGES=115–,

Worm >		Nephrozoa >	chapter=New data on Kimberella, the Vendian mollusc-like organism (White sea region, Russia): palaeoecological and evolutionary implications	author2=Simonetta, A	pages=157–179	mode=cs1}}BUTTERFIELD, N.J. > DATE=DECEMBER 2006	JOURNAL=BIOESSAYS	ISSUE=12	DOI=10.1002/BIES.20507, 17120226, 29130876,

Radiata >	Bilateria >	Eumetazoa >		AUTHOR2=FINNERTY, J.R.	TITLE=THE RADIATA AND THE EVOLUTIONARY ORIGINS OF THE BILATERIAN BODY PLAN	DATE=SEPTEMBER 2002	ISSUE=3	DOI=10.1016/S1055-7903(02)00208-7, 12220977,

Platyzoa >	Lophotrochozoa, Mesozoa >	Spiralia >

Fish >	Tetrapoda >	Vertebrate >	Chordates {{webarchive>url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070224172716weblink |date=24 February 2007 }}.

Reptiles>	Birds >	Sauropsida >| {{RefTudgeVariety}}

Dinosaur>Nonavian Dinosaur|Birds|Dinosauria|

Lizard>

Snakes, Amphisbaenia >

Squamates >

LAST2=TOWNSEND

LAST3=MULCAHY

LAST4=NOONAN

LAST5=WOOD

LAST6=SITES

LAST7=WIENS

TITLE=INTEGRATED ANALYSES RESOLVE CONFLICTS OVER SQUAMATE REPTILE PHYLOGENY AND REVEAL UNEXPECTED PLACEMENTS FOR FOSSIL TAXA

DATE=2015

ISSUE=3

DOI=10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0118199

PMC=4372529

DOI-ACCESS=FREE,

Plagiaulacidans >	Cimolodonta, Arginbaataridae >	Multituberculata >		NAME-LIST-STYLE=AMP	TITLE=PHYLOGENY AND SYSTEMATICS OF MULTITUBERCULATE ANIMALS	VOLUME=44	PAGES=389–429	BIBCODE=2001PALGY..44..389K	URL=HTTP://DOC.RERO.CH/RECORD/14775/FILES/PAL_E1903.PDF,

Pelycosaurs >	Therapsida >	Synapsida >		TITLE=VERTEBRATE PALAEONTOLOGY	PUBLISHER=BLACKWELL SCIENCE	ISBN=978-0-632-05637-8, 3rd,

Even-toed ungulates >	Cetacea >	Cetartiodactyla >		NAME-LIST-STYLE=AMP	TITLE=MAMMAL EVOLUTION: AN ILLUSTRATED GUIDE	URL-ACCESS=REGISTRATION	LOCATION=NEW YORK	208 >ISBN=0-8160-1194-X,

Archaeoceti >	Neoceti >	Cetacea >		LAST2=WILLIAMS	TITLE=THE EARLY RADIATIONS OF CETACEA (MAMMALIA): EVOLUTIONARY PATTERN AND DEVELOPMENTAL CORRELATIONS	JOURNAL=ANNUAL REVIEW OF ECOLOGY AND SYSTEMATICS	PAGES=73–90	OCLC=4656321698,

Prosimians >	Simian>Simiiformes	Primates	GROVES > FIRST1=C. P.	TITLE=SYSTEMATICS OF TARSIERS AND LORISES	VOLUME=39	PAGES=13–27	S2CID=10869981,

Crustaceans >

Hexapoda >

Tetraconata >

LAST2=VON REUMONT

LAST3=JENNER

LAST4=WILLS

LAST5=DELL'AMPIO

LAST6=PASS

LAST7=EBERSBERGER

LAST8=MEYER

LAST9=KOENEMANN

YEAR=2012

JOURNAL=MOLECULAR BIOLOGY AND EVOLUTION

ISSUE=3

DOI=10.1093/MOLBEV/MSR270

URL=HTTP://EPRINTS.CS.UNIVIE.AC.AT/3232/

PORTABLE DOCUMENT FORMAT>PDF PROOFS, free,

Wasps >	Ants, Bees >	Apocrita >|

Sawfly >	Apocrita >	Hymenoptera >|

Vespoidea >	Apoidea, Ants >	Euaculeata >|

Parasitica >	Aculeata >	Apocrita >| Parasitic Hymenoptera (Parasitica). RL Zuparko, Encyclopedia of Entomology, 2004

Nautiloidea >	Ammonoidea, Coleoidea >	Cephalopoda >		YEAR=2004	FIRST1=A. R.	FIRST2=G.	FIRST3=M. K.	VOLUME=20	PAGES=454–486	S2CID=85975284, free,

Charophyte >	Embryophyte (Land plants) >	Streptophyta >		LAST2=MARIN	YEAR=2009	JOURNAL=ANNALS OF BOTANY	PAGES=999–1004	PMID=19273476	PMC=2707909,

Dicotyledon >	Monocotyledon >	Angiosperm >|

Moth >	Butterfly >	Lepidoptera >		YEAR=1995	LOCATION=OXFORD	PAGES=404,

Coral >

Medusozoa, Myxozoa >

Cnidaria >

AUTHOR3=KITAHARA, M.V.

AUTHOR5=MORANDINI, A.C.

TITLE = FAST-EVOLVING MITOCHONDRIAL DNA IN CERIANTHARIA: A REFLECTION OF HEXACORALLIA PARAPHYLY?

VOLUME = 9

PAGES = E86612

DOI=10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0086612

BIBCODE=2014PLOSO...986612S

AUTHOR3=BARNES, ROBERT D.

CHAPTER=7 CNIDARIA

URL=HTTPS://ARCHIVE.ORG/DETAILS/ISBN_9780030259821

EDITION=7TH

CENGAGE>THOMSON-BROOKS/COLE

PAGES=132–148

LCCN=2003107287, 752875516,

Jellyfish >

Hydroidolina >

Medusozoa >

TITLE=MITOCHONDRIAL GENOME OF THE FRESHWATER JELLYFISH CRASPEDACUSTA SOWERBYI AND PHYLOGENETICS OF MEDUSOZOA

LAST1=ZOU

LAST2=ZHANG

LAST3=LI

LAST4=WU

LAST5=WANG

JOURNAL=PLOS ONE

ISSUE=12

PMC=3519871

DOI-ACCESS=FREE, MARQUES>FIRST=ANTONIO C.

TITLE=CLADISTIC ANALYSIS OF MEDUSOZOA AND CNIDARIAN EVOLUTION

DATE=MARCH 2004

NUMBER=1

DOI=10.1111/J.1744-7410.2004.TB00139.X, ZAPATA>DISPLAY-AUTHORS=ETAL

TITLE=PHYLOGENOMIC ANALYSES SUPPORT TRADITIONAL RELATIONSHIPS WITHIN CNIDARIA

DOI=10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0139068

VOLUME=10

PAGE=E0139068

PMID=26465609, 4605497,

Cycloneuralia >

Panarthropoda >

Ecdysozoa >

LAST2 = HEJNOL

LAST3 = MATUS

LAST4 = PANG

LAST5 = BROWNE

LAST6 = SMITH

LAST7 = SEAVER

LAST8 = ROUSE

DISPLAY-AUTHORS = ETAL

TITLE = BROAD PHYLOGENOMIC SAMPLING IMPROVES RESOLUTION OF THE ANIMAL TREE OF LIFE

VOLUME = 452

PAGES = 745–749

BIBCODE = 2008NATUR.452..745D

S2CID = 4397099, WEBSTER>FIRST1=BONNIE L.

FIRST2=RICHARD R.

FIRST3=RONALD A.

FIRST4=JACQUELINE A.

FIRST5=SARAH J.

FIRST6=OMAR

FIRST7=D. T. J.

FIRST8=MAXIMILIAN J.

JOURNAL=EVOLUTION & DEVELOPMENT

VOLUME=8

PAGES=502–510

PMID=17073934, 22823313,

Rotifera >

Acanthocephala >

Syndermata >

AUTHOR3=BARNES, ROBERT D.

CHAPTER=23 GNATHIFERA

URL=HTTPS://ARCHIVE.ORG/DETAILS/ISBN_9780030259821

EDITION=7TH

CENGAGE>THOMSON-BROOKS/COLE

PAGES=788FF. – SEE PARTICULARLY P. 804

LCCN=2003107287

ACCESS-DATE = 27 JULY 2008

PUBLISHER = REEFKEEPING.COM, January 2006,

Mecoptera >	Siphonaptera >	Mecopteroidea >|

Anthoathecata >	Leptothecata, Siphonophorae >	Hydroidolina >|

Monkey >| Hominoidea	Simiiformes	ARONRA>TITLE=TURNS OUT WE DID COME FROM MONKEYS!	URL=HTTPS://WWW.YOUTUBE.COM/WATCH?V=4A-DMQEBSK8		ACCESS-DATE=2017-08-12	ARCHIVE-DATE=10 JANUARY 2018	URL-STATUS=DEAD,

|Antelope|Bovini, Caprinae|Bovidae

	LAST2=REEDER	YEAR=2005	EDITION=3RD	PUBLISHER=JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY PRESS	NAME-LIST-STYLE=AMP	URL=HTTPS://BOOKS.GOOGLE.COM/BOOKS?ID=JGAMBNST8IKC&PG=PA699, , p. 699.

Linguistics

The concept of paraphyly has also been applied to historical linguistics, where the methods of cladistics have found some utility in comparing languages. For instance, the Formosan languages form a paraphyletic group of the Austronesian languages because they consist of the nine branches of the Austronesian family that are not Malayo-Polynesian and are restricted to the island of Taiwan.Greenhill, Simon J. and Russell D. Gray. (2009.) "Austronesian Language and Phylogenies: Myths and Misconceptions About Bayesian Computational Methods," in Austronesian Historical Linguistics and Culture History: a Festschrift for Robert Blust, edited by Alexander Adelaar and Andrew Pawley. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, The Australian National University.

See also

• Glossary of scientific naming

Explanatory notes

{{Reflist|group=note}}

References

{{Reflist|30em}}

Bibliography

• BOOK, Simpson, Michael George, 2006, Plant systematics, Academic Press, Burlington; San Diego; London, 978-0-12-644460-5,
• Paraphyletic groups as natural units of biological classification

External links

{{Wiktionary|paraphyletic}}

• {{Commons category-inline|Paraphyly}}
• JOURNAL, Funk, D. J., Omland, K. E., 2003, Species-level paraphyly and polyphyly: Frequency, cause and consequences, with insights from animal mitochondrial DNA, Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 34, 397–423, 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.34.011802.132421, 33951905, free, none,

{{Phylogenetics}}