Quick
Search: 
 
advanced search
 GSW Home    GeoRef Home    My GSW Alerts    Contact GSW    About GSW    Journals List    Help 
Paleobiology Signup for GSW Email News
JOURNAL HOME HELP CONTACT PUBLISHER SUBSCRIBE ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS

Paleobiology; September 2005; v. 31; no. 3; p. 347-353; DOI: 10.1666/0094-8373(2005)031[0347:ARATRO]2.0.CO;2
© 2005 Paleontological Society
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (1)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Dayrat, B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
GeoRef
Right arrow GeoRef Citation

Ancestor-descendant relationships and the reconstruction of the Tree of Life

Benoît Dayrat1,2

1 Department of Invertebrate Zoology and Geology, California Academy of Sciences, 875 Howard Street, San Francisco, California 94103. bdayrat@calacademy.org
2 Present address: School of Natural Sciences, University of California, Post Office Box 2039, Merced, California 95344. bdayrat@ucmerced.edu

Accepted 17 February 2005

The first 20% of the full text of this article appears below.


    INTRODUCTION
 
The reconstruction of the Tree of Life has been a primary goal in biology since Darwin coined the expression, the "great Tree of Life" in On the Origin of Species: "The affinities of all the beings of the same class have sometimes been represented by a great tree. I believe this simile largely speaks the truth. The green and budding twigs may represent existing species; and those produced during each former year may represent the long succession of extinct species....As buds give rise by growth to fresh buds, and these, if vigorous, branch out and overtop on all sides many a feebler branch, so by generation I believe it has been with the great Tree of Life, which fills with its dead and broken branches the crust of the earth, and covers the surface with its ever branching and beautiful ramifications" (Darwin 1859: pp. 129–130). Ernst Haeckel was the first biologist who attempted to reconstruct the Darwinian Tree of Life. However, he could not reach his goal because his method of tree reconstruction was deeply anchored in the pre-Darwinian scala naturae (Dayrat 2003). A segment of the Darwinian Tree of Life is illustrated in the unique figure published in On the Origin of Species. This figure, which Darwin referred to as a "branching diagram," represents ancestor-descendant relationships (ADR).

Pointing out that Darwin's Tree of Life represents ADR is not controversial. It simply is a fact. However, it might be more controversial to point out a paradoxical situation: why does an overwhelming majority of the trees currently published represent sister-group relationships (SGR)? Given that reconstructing the Darwinian Tree of Life is one of today's foremost goals in systematic biology, one would expect that the reconstruction of ADR would arouse greater interest among biologists.

Certainly, only . . . [Full Text of this Article]







JOURNAL HOME HELP CONTACT PUBLISHER SUBSCRIBE ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2008 by Paleontological Society