|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
| JOURNAL HOME | HELP | CONTACT PUBLISHER | SUBSCRIBE | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
1 Philip C. J. Donoghue. Department of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Wills Memorial Building, Queens Road, Bristol BS8 1RJ, United Kingdom.
phil.donoghue@bristol.ac.uk
Accepted 16 March 2005
| The first 20% of the full text of this article appears below. |
| INTRODUCTION |
|---|
Hennig (1981) argued that rank taxa should be defined on the basis of extant organisms because the latter are often better known than fossil taxa. However, he further argued that traditional taxonomic concepts should be expanded to include all extinct taxa more closely related to the living members than to any other extant clade. The extant clade he denoted the *group, later renamed the crown group (Jefferies 1979), and its paraphyletic complement of extinct taxa, the stem group; Jefferies (1979) later coined the term "total group" to describe the monophyletic sum of the stem and crown group, equivalent to Hennig's (1981) more inclusive version of the rank taxon (see Fig. 1 for a diagrammatic representation of these concepts).
| |||||||||||
Hennig's vision of reconstructed stem groups
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
R. A. Stockey and G. W. Rothwell Distinguishing angiophytes from the earliest angiosperms: A Lower Cretaceous (Valanginian-Hauterivian) fruit-like reproductive structure Am. J. Botany, January 1, 2009; 96(1): 323 - 335. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
K. de Queiroz Toward an Integrated System of Clade Names Syst Biol, December 1, 2007; 56(6): 956 - 974. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| JOURNAL HOME | HELP | CONTACT PUBLISHER | SUBSCRIBE | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |