PHENETIC TAXONOMY: Theory and Methods

Phenetic taxonomy is a system of classification based on the overall similarity of the organisms being classified. Phenetic relationships are defined by Cain & Harrison (10) as "arrangement by overall similarity, based on all available characters without any weighting." (The weighting implied here is a priori, i.e. before the classification is established.) This review focuses on numerical phenetics (59), in which the phenetic arrangement of the taxa is developed with numerical procedures applied to the character states of the organisms classified or to distance matrixes among them obtained by various techniques, principally applied to molecular data. I propose to summarize developments subsequent to the publication of the most recent comprehensive review of the subject (90); some of the technical terms not elaborated in this review can be found there. Phenetics is discussed as a basis for the system of classifying organisms and is briefly contrasted with two alternative current approaches in taxonomy-evolutionary taxonomy (the syncretistic approach of the Simpson-Mayr school) and phylogenetic systematics sensu Hennig and his disciples, also known as cladistics. This comparison is based in part on the notion of producing optimal classifications (defined later). Recent developments in the techniques of phenetic taxonomy are considered separately from the theory. These techniques are applied in wide areas of systematics and ecology, not just to produce biological classifications. The review also touches upon the as-yet-unrealized potential of phenetic methods as tools in biosystematic research.

[1]  Ernst Mayr,et al.  Principles of systematic zoology , 1969 .

[2]  James S. Farris,et al.  The Information Content of the Phylogenetic System , 1979 .

[3]  J. Gilmour.  A Taxonomic Problem , 1937, Nature.

[4]  James W. Archie,et al.  METHODS FOR CODING VARIABLE MORPHOLOGICAL FEATURES FOR NUMERICAL TAXONOMIC ANALYSIS , 1985 .

[5]  J. Hartigan.  REPRESENTATION OF SIMILARITY MATRICES BY TREES , 1967 .

[6]  David C. Eades,et al.  The Inappropriateness of the Correlation Coefficient as a Measure of Taxonomic Resemblance , 1965 .

[7]  J. Gower.  Maximal predictive classification , 1974 .

[8]  J. Hartigan.  Statistical theory in clustering , 1985 .

[9]  R. F. Ling.  An exact probability distribution on the connectivity of random graphs , 1975 .

[10]  M M Dow,et al.  Comparison of distance matrices in studies of population structure and genetic microdifferentiation: quadratic assignment. , 1985, American journal of physical anthropology.

[11]  Peter D. Ashlock,et al.  An Evolutionary Systematist's View of Classification , 1979 .

[12]  A MONTE CARLO APPROACH TO LINKAGE CLUSTERING , 1982 .

[13]  J. Farris,et al.  Methods for Investigating Taxonomie Congruence and their Application to the Leptopodomorpha , 1981 .

[14]  E. Dietz.  Permutation Tests for Association Between Two Distance Matrices , 1983 .

[15]  Jonathan Roughgarden,et al.  Evolution of Niche Width , 1972, The American Naturalist.

[16]  Gary D. Schnell,et al.  Statistical comparison of proximity matrices: applications in animal behaviour , 1985, Animal Behaviour.

[17]  F. Rohlf.  Consensus indices for comparing classifications , 1982 .

[18]  J. Beatty.  Classes and Cladists , 1982 .

[19]  R. Sokal,et al.  Multiple regression and correlation extensions of the mantel test of matrix correspondence , 1986 .

[20]  R. Sokal,et al.  Principles of numerical taxonomy , 1965 .

[21]  E. Wiley,et al.  THEORIES AND METHODS IN DIFFERENT APPROACHES TO PHYLOGENETIC SYSTEMATICS , 1985, Cladistics : the international journal of the Willi Hennig Society.

[22]  G. Estabrook.  Evolutionary Classification Using Convex Phenetics , 1986 .

[23]  Algorithms Optimizing the Taxonomic Information of Classifications , 1983 .

[24]  J. Polhemus,et al.  Analysis of Taxonomic Congruence among Morphological, Ecological, and Biogeographic Data Sets for the Leptopodomorpha (Hemiptera) , 1980 .

[25]  J. Farris.  On the Naturalness of Phylogenetic Classification , 1979 .

[26]  R. Sokal,et al.  THE COMPARISON OF DENDROGRAMS BY OBJECTIVE METHODS , 1962 .

[27]  M. F. Mickevich.  Taxonomic Congruence: Rohlf and Sokal's Misunderstanding , 1980 .

[28]  Edward E. Smith,et al.  Categories and concepts , 1984 .

[29]  Robert R. Sokal,et al.  A Phylogenetic Analysis of the Caminalcules. I. the Data Base , 1983 .

[30]  D. Penny,et al.  The Use of Tree Comparison Metrics , 1985 .

[31]  R. Sokal,et al.  Comments on Taxonomic Congruence , 1980 .

[32]  Robert K. Colwell,et al.  Experimental Studies of the Niche , 1975 .

[33]  H. T. Clifford,et al.  An Introduction to Numerical Classification. , 1976 .

[34]  Niles Eldredge,et al.  Phylogenetic Patterns and the Evolutionary Process. , 1981 .

[35]  P. Sneath,et al.  Naturalness and predictivity of classifications , 1985 .

[36]  Fred R. McMorris,et al.  COMPARISON OF UNDIRECTED PHYLOGENETIC TREES BASED ON SUBTREES OF FOUR EVOLUTIONARY UNITS , 1985 .

[37]  R. Sokal,et al.  OTU stability and factors determining taxonomic stability: examples from the caminalcules and the leptopodomorpha , 1984 .

[38]  J. Gilmour,et al.  The Development of Taxonomic Theory Since 1851 , 1951, Nature.

[39]  H. M. Savage.  The shape of evolution: systematic tree topology , 1983 .

[40]  J. Cracraft.  The Significance of Phylogenetic Classifications for Systematic and Evolutionary Biology , 1983 .

[41]  Lawrence Hubert,et al.  Combinatorial data analysis: Association and partial association , 1985 .

[42]  F. James Rohlf,et al.  Comparing Numerical Taxonomic Studies , 1981 .

[43]  F. Rohlf.  Adaptive Hierarchical Clustering Schemes , 1970 .

[44]  J. Farris.  A Successive Approximations Approach to Character Weighting , 1969 .

[45]  R. M. Cormack,et al.  A Review of Classification , 1971 .

[46]  J. Felsenstein.  CONFIDENCE LIMITS ON PHYLOGENIES: AN APPROACH USING THE BOOTSTRAP , 1985, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[47]  D. Wood.  Character Transformations in Phenetic Studies Using Continuous Morphometric Variables , 1983 .

[48]  J. Gower.  A General Coefficient of Similarity and Some of Its Properties , 1971 .

[49]  J. Archie.  A NEW LOOK AT THE PREDICTIVE VALUE OF NUMERICAL CLASSIFICATIONS , 1984 .

[50]  E. J. Dupraw.  Non-Linnean Taxonomy and the Systematics of Honeybees , 1965 .

[51]  CHARACTER VARIABILITY AND EVOLUTIONARY RATE IN MENIDIA , 1979, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[52]  W. H. Day.  Optimal algorithms for comparing trees with labeled leaves , 1985 .

[53]  F. James Rohlf,et al.  Taxonomic Congruence in the Leptopodomorpha Re-examined , 1981 .

[54]  Robert R. Sokal,et al.  Testing Statistical Significance of Geographic Variation Patterns , 1979 .

[55]  R. Sokal,et al.  An Experiment in Taxonomic Judgment , 1980 .

[56]  P. Sneath,et al.  Basic program for a significance test for two clusters in euclidean space as measured by their overlap , 1979 .

[57]  Christophe Perruchet,et al.  Significance Tests for Clusters: Overview and Comments , 1983 .

[58]  Herbert Edelsbrunner,et al.  Investigation of proportional link linkage clustering methods , 1985 .

[59]  J. Farris.  On the Phenetic Approach to Vertebrate Classification , 1977 .

[60]  F. Rohlf,et al.  Taxonomic Congruence Re-Examined , 1983 .

[61]  N. Mantel.  The detection of disease clustering and a generalized regression approach. , 1967, Cancer research.

[62]  E. J. Dupraw.  The Recognition and Handling of Honeybee Specimens in Non-Linnean Taxonomy , 1965 .

[63]  R. Sokal,et al.  Character Stability in 39 Data Sets , 1985 .

[64]  CODING MORPHOMETRIC CHARACTERS FOR CONSTRUCTING DISTANCE WAGNER NETWORKS , 1984, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[65]  Stephen Jay Gould,et al.  Covariance Sets and Ordered Geographic Variation in Cerion from Aruba, Bonaire and Curaçao: A Way of Studying Nonadaptation , 1984 .

[66]  A. D. Gordon,et al.  Obtaining common pruned trees , 1985 .

[67]  P. S. Ward.  Taxonomic Congruence and Disparity in an Insular Ant Fauna: Rhytidoponera in New Caledonia , 1985 .

[68]  E. J. Dupraw.  Non-Linnean Taxonomy , 1964, Nature.

[69]  W. DeSarbo,et al.  Optimal variable weighting for hierarchical clustering: An alternating least-squares algorithm , 1985 .

[70]  E. Mayr.  Numerical Phenetics and Taxonomic Theory , 1965 .

[71]  J. Hartigan.  Distribution Problems in Clustering , 1977 .

[72]  G. Estabrook,et al.  Some Concepts for the Estimation of Evolutionary Relationships in Systematic Botany , 1978 .

[73]  J V Neel,et al.  The genetic structure of a tribal population, the Yanomama Indians. XV. Patterns inferred by autocorrelation analysis. , 1986, Genetics.

[74]  R. Macarthur,et al.  The Limiting Similarity, Convergence, and Divergence of Coexisting Species , 1967, The American Naturalist.

[75]  H. Edelsbrunner,et al.  Efficient algorithms for agglomerative hierarchical clustering methods , 1984 .

[76]  N. Platnick.  PHILOSOPHY AND THE TRANSFORMATION OF CLADISTICS REVISITED , 1985, Cladistics : the international journal of the Willi Hennig Society.

[77]  R. Sokal,et al.  Spatial variation among Kenyan tribes and subtribes. , 1987, Human biology.

[78]  An Extension of Intersection Methods From Trees to Dendrograms , 1984 .

[79]  H. Bock.  On some significance tests in cluster analysis , 1985 .

[80]  Donald H. Colless.  A Method for Hierarchical Clustering Based on Predictivity , 1984 .

[81]  G. Dunn,et al.  An Introduction to Mathematical Taxonomy , 1983 .

[82]  Eli C. Minkoff,et al.  The Effects on Classification of Slight Alterations in Numerical Technique , 1965 .

[83]  J. Farris,et al.  The implications of congruence in Menidia , 1981 .

[84]  F. Rohlf,et al.  Tests for Hierarchical Structure in Random Data Sets , 1968 .

[85]  Walter J. Bock,et al.  Foundations and Methods of Evolutionary Classification , 1977 .