Methods of systematic analysis: the relative superiority of phylogenetic systematics.

Origins of life Pub Date : 1984-03-01 DOI:10.1007/BF00927175
D L Lipscomb
{"title":"Methods of systematic analysis: the relative superiority of phylogenetic systematics.","authors":"D L Lipscomb","doi":"10.1007/BF00927175","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The superiority of cladistic methods to both synthetic and phenetic methods is briefly advanced and reviewed. Cladistics creates testable hypotheses of phylogeny that also give a highly informative summary of available data. Thus it best fits the criteria for a method for determining the general reference classification in biology. For protistologists in particular, cladistics is especially useful. Inundated by an abundance of ultrastructural, biochemical, and cell biological information, protistologists could be greatly helped by the informative way in which cladistics orders and summarizes the data. In addition to classifying protist taxa, hypotheses about the evolution of cell organelles and cellular could be scientifically formulated and tested by cladistics . Because cladistic classifications best summarize the data, they would also be best for making predictions about taxa and characters. They would, for the same reason, be the most stable. Widespread adoption of cladistic methods would serve to stabilize the now fluid state of protist taxonomy. It is for all of these reasons that such methods best suit the needs of the evolutionary protistologist .</p>","PeriodicalId":76288,"journal":{"name":"Origins of life","volume":"13 3-4","pages":"235-48"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1984-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/BF00927175","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Origins of life","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00927175","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

The superiority of cladistic methods to both synthetic and phenetic methods is briefly advanced and reviewed. Cladistics creates testable hypotheses of phylogeny that also give a highly informative summary of available data. Thus it best fits the criteria for a method for determining the general reference classification in biology. For protistologists in particular, cladistics is especially useful. Inundated by an abundance of ultrastructural, biochemical, and cell biological information, protistologists could be greatly helped by the informative way in which cladistics orders and summarizes the data. In addition to classifying protist taxa, hypotheses about the evolution of cell organelles and cellular could be scientifically formulated and tested by cladistics . Because cladistic classifications best summarize the data, they would also be best for making predictions about taxa and characters. They would, for the same reason, be the most stable. Widespread adoption of cladistic methods would serve to stabilize the now fluid state of protist taxonomy. It is for all of these reasons that such methods best suit the needs of the evolutionary protistologist .

系统分析方法:系统发育系统学的相对优势。
简要介绍了分支法相对于合成法和遗传法的优越性。分支学创造了可测试的系统发育假设,也提供了对现有数据的高度翔实的总结。因此,它最适合作为确定生物学中一般参考分类方法的标准。特别是对原生生物学家来说,分类学特别有用。被大量的超微结构、生物化学和细胞生物学信息所淹没,原生生物学家可以通过分类整理和总结数据的信息方式得到极大的帮助。除了对原生生物分类群进行分类外,细胞器和细胞的进化假说也可以通过分类学得到科学的表述和检验。因为枝系分类最好地总结了数据,它们也最适合预测分类群和特征。出于同样的原因,它们会是最稳定的。进化分类方法的广泛采用将有助于稳定原生生物分类学目前不稳定的状态。正是由于这些原因,这些方法最适合进化原生生物学家的需要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信