11/5/2020 Monophyly - Wikipedia

Monophyly
In cladistics for a group of organisms, monophyly is
the condition of being monophyletic—that is, a
group of taxa that share a common ancestry. The
resulting group is called a monophyletic group or
clade, composed only of a common ancestor (or more
precisely an ancestral population) and its lineal
descendants. Monophyletic groups are typically
characterised by shared derived characteristics
(synapomorphies), which distinguish organisms in A phylogenetic tree: both blue and red groups are
the clade from other organisms. A related term is monophyletic. The green group is paraphyletic
holophyly, the condition of being holophyletic— because it is missing a monophyletic group (the
that is, a common ancestor and all descended taxa.[1] blue group) that shares a common ancestor—the
lowest green vertical stem.
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. A polyphyletic group is
characterized by convergent features or habits of
scientific interest (for example, night-active primates,
fruit trees, aquatic insects). The features by which a
polyphyletic group is differentiated from others are
not inherited from a common ancestor.

These definitions have taken some time to be

accepted. When the cladistics 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,[2] a confusion
which persists.[3] A cladogram of the primates, showing a
monophyletic taxon: the simians (in yellow); a
The first diagram shows a phylogenetic tree with two paraphyletic taxon: the prosimians (in cyan,
monophyletic groups. The several groups and including the red patch); and a polyphyletic group:
subgroups are particularly situated as branches of the the night-active primates, i.e., the lorises and the
tree to indicate ordered lineal relationships between tarsiers (in red)
all the organisms shown. Further, any group may (or
may not) be considered a taxon by modern
systematics, depending upon the selection of its members in relation to their common ancestor(s);
see second and third diagrams.

Contents
Etymology
Definitions
See also

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monophyly 1/4
11/5/2020 Monophyly - Wikipedia

References
External links

Etymology
The term monophyly, or monophyletic, derives from
the two Ancient Greek words μόνος (mónos),
meaning "alone, only, unique", and φῦλον (phûlon),
meaning "genus, species",[4][5] and refers to the fact
that a monophyletic group includes organisms (e.g.,
genera, species) consisting of all the descendants of a
unique common ancestor.
A cladogram of the vertebrates showing
Conversely, the term polyphyly, or polyphyletic,
phylogenetic groups. A monophyletic taxon (in
builds on the ancient Greek prefix πολύς (polús),
yellow): the group of "reptiles and birds", contains
meaning "many, a lot of",[4][5] and refers to the fact its most recent common ancestor and all
that a polyphyletic group includes organisms arising descendants of that ancestor. A paraphyletic
from multiple ancestral sources. taxon (in cyan): the group of reptiles, contains its
most recent common ancestor, but does not
By comparison, the term paraphyly, or paraphyletic, contain all the descendants (namely Aves) of that
uses the ancient Greek prefix παρά (pará), meaning ancestor. A polyphyletic "group" (in red): the
"beside, near",[4][5] and refers to the situation in group of all warm-blooded animals (Aves and
which one or several monophyletic subgroups are left Mammalia), does not contain the most recent
apart from all other descendants of a unique common common ancestor of all its members; this group is
ancestor. That is, a paraphyletic group is nearly not seen as a taxonomic unit and is not
monophyletic, hence the prefix pará. considered a taxon by modern systematists.

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.[3][6][7][8] 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.[2] 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.[9]
Monophyly (also, holophyly) 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.[9] The loose definition also fails to
recognize the relations of all organisms.[10] 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.[11]
Moreover, the concepts of monophyly, paraphyly, and polyphyly have been used in deducing key
genes for barcoding of diverse group of species.[12]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monophyly 2/4
11/5/2020 Monophyly - Wikipedia

See also
Clade
Crown group
Glossary of scientific naming
Monotypic taxon
Paraphyly
Polyphyly

References
1. Allaby, Michael (2015). A Dictionary of Ecology (5 ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
ISBN 9780191793158.
2. 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 978-0-252-06814-0.
3. Aubert, D. 2015. A formal analysis of phylogenetic terminology: Towards a reconsideration of the
current paradigm in systematics. Phytoneuron 2015-66:1–54.
4. Bailly, Anatole (1 January 1981). Abrégé du dictionnaire grec français. Paris: Hachette.
ISBN 978-2010035289. OCLC 461974285 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/461974285).
5. Bailly, Anatole. "Greek-french dictionary online" (http://www.tabularium.be/bailly/).
www.tabularium.be. Retrieved 7 March 2018.
6. Colless, Donald H. (March 1972). "Monophyly". Systematic Zoology. 21 (1): 126–128.
doi:10.2307/2412266 (https://doi.org/10.2307%2F2412266). JSTOR 2412266 (https://www.jstor.o
rg/stable/2412266).
7. Envall, Mats (2008). "On the difference between mono-, holo-, and paraphyletic groups: a
consistent distinction of process and pattern" (https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1095-8312.2008.0098
4.x). Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. 94: 217–220. doi:10.1111/j.1095-
8312.2008.00984.x (https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1095-8312.2008.00984.x).
8. Ashlock, Peter D. (March 1971). "Monophyly and Associated Terms". Systematic Zoology. 20 (1):
63–69. doi:10.2307/2412223 (https://doi.org/10.2307%2F2412223). JSTOR 2412223 (https://ww
w.jstor.org/stable/2412223).
9. Simpson, George (1961). Principles of Animal Taxonomy (https://archive.org/details/principlesofa
nim0000simp). New York: Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-02427-3.
10. Carr, Dr Steven M. "Monophyletic, Polyphyletic, & Paraphyletc Taxa" (https://www.mun.ca/biolog
y/scarr/Taxon_types.htm). www.mun.ca. Retrieved 23 February 2018.
11. Stamos, D.N. (2003). The species problem : biological species, ontology, and the metaphysics of
biology (https://books.google.com/?id=jPAjv5FsKMYC&pg=PA260&lpg=PA260&dq=defining+spe
cies+cladistically'#v=onepage&q=defining%20species%20cladistically'&f=false). Lanham, Md.
[u.a.]: Lexington Books. pp. 261–268. ISBN 978-0739105030.
12. Parhi J., Tripathy P.S., Priyadarshi, H., Mandal S.C., Pandey P.K. (2019). "Diagnosis of
mitogenome for robust phylogeny: A case of Cypriniformes fish group". Gene. 713: 143967.
doi:10.1016/j.gene.2019.143967 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.gene.2019.143967).

External links
Abbey, Darren (1994–2006). "Graphical explanation of basic phylogenetic terms" (http://www.ucm
p.berkeley.edu/glossary/gloss1/phyly.html). University of California, Berkeley. Retrieved
15 January 2010.
Carr, Steven M. (2002). "Concepts of monophyly, polyphyly & paraphyly" (https://www.mun.ca/biol
ogy/scarr/Taxon_types.htm). Memorial University. Retrieved 15 January 2010.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monophyly 3/4
11/5/2020 Monophyly - Wikipedia

Hyvönen, Jaako (2005). "Monophyly, consensus, compromise" (http://www.helsinki.fi/~jhyvonen/e

c05/05_11.11.pdf) (PDF). University of Helsinki. Retrieved 15 January 2010.
"Phylogenetic Trees and Classification" (https://www.digitalatlasofancientlife.org/learn/systematic
s/phylogenetics/trees-classification/). Digital Atlas of Ancient Life. Paleontological Research
Institution.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monophyly&oldid=976981711"

This page was last edited on 6 September 2020, at 06:48 (UTC).

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this
site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia
Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monophyly 4/4