Bryophytes are not early diverging land plants
Phylogenetic trees have permeated biology. However, an understanding ofhowto interpret phylogenies has lagged behind, notably in publications outside of evolutionary biology. Here I argue that some language commonly used in plant systematics has contributed to the confusion by describing phylogeneti...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | The New phytologist 2021-05, Vol.230 (4), p.1300-1304 |
---|---|
1. Verfasser: | |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 1304 |
---|---|
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | 1300 |
container_title | The New phytologist |
container_volume | 230 |
creator | McDaniel, Stuart F. |
description | Phylogenetic trees have permeated biology. However, an understanding ofhowto interpret phylogenies has lagged behind, notably in publications outside of evolutionary biology. Here I argue that some language commonly used in plant systematics has contributed to the confusion by describing phylogenetic trees using intuitive but misleading terms reminiscent of Aristotle’s Scala Naturae. These terms (perhaps inadvertently) misrepresent evolution, not as a process acting on all living species, but rather as a progression of successively diverging lineages leading to a group that represents a subjectively defined endpoint.Mygoal here is to show how thinking of the tree of life in terms of early-diverging lineages and higher groups can distort evolutionary literacy, confound interdisciplinary communication, and potentially bias research agendas. I focus on the relationship between bryophytes and angiosperms as a case study, but the theme applies to all branches of the tree of life. Fortunately, evolutionary biologists have developed an easily understood alternative framework – tree thinking – which I highlight as a means to promote a clear understanding of phylogenies across sub-disciplines of biology, and between practicing biologists and students, or members the public which funds much of our work. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1111/nph.17241 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2484157927</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>27178934</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>27178934</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4101-ab12896c7da2faf582338ab52a65092c6c3ce00a6a481fda372fecef1a76f2db3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kLFOwzAQhi0EoqUw8ACgSCwwpLXPju2MUAFFQsAAEpvlJk6bKk2CnYDy9hjSdkDihrvl-3-dPoROCR4TP5OyXo6JAEb20JAwHoeSULGPhhiDDDnj7wN05NwKYxxHHA7RgNIISCzoEI1vbFfVy64xLtDWBGXVBEbbogvS_NPYRV4ugkKXaVD73bhjdJDpwpmTzR2ht7vb1-ksfHy-f5heP4YJI5iEek5AxjwRqYZMZ5EESqWeR6B5hGNIeEITg7HmmkmSpZoKyExiMqIFzyCd0xG67HtrW320xjVqnbvEFP4JU7VOAZOMRCIG4dGLP-iqam3pv1MQEeBMAAZPXfVUYivnrMlUbfO1tp0iWP1IVF6i-pXo2fNNYztfm3RHbq15YNIDX3lhuv-b1NPLbFt51idWrqnsLgGCCBlTRr8BO_2Dlw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2512647202</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Bryophytes are not early diverging land plants</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>Wiley Free Content</source><creator>McDaniel, Stuart F.</creator><creatorcontrib>McDaniel, Stuart F.</creatorcontrib><description>Phylogenetic trees have permeated biology. However, an understanding ofhowto interpret phylogenies has lagged behind, notably in publications outside of evolutionary biology. Here I argue that some language commonly used in plant systematics has contributed to the confusion by describing phylogenetic trees using intuitive but misleading terms reminiscent of Aristotle’s Scala Naturae. These terms (perhaps inadvertently) misrepresent evolution, not as a process acting on all living species, but rather as a progression of successively diverging lineages leading to a group that represents a subjectively defined endpoint.Mygoal here is to show how thinking of the tree of life in terms of early-diverging lineages and higher groups can distort evolutionary literacy, confound interdisciplinary communication, and potentially bias research agendas. I focus on the relationship between bryophytes and angiosperms as a case study, but the theme applies to all branches of the tree of life. Fortunately, evolutionary biologists have developed an easily understood alternative framework – tree thinking – which I highlight as a means to promote a clear understanding of phylogenies across sub-disciplines of biology, and between practicing biologists and students, or members the public which funds much of our work.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0028-646X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1469-8137</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/nph.17241</identifier><identifier>PMID: 33521973</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Wiley</publisher><subject>Angiosperms ; Aquatic plants ; Biological evolution ; Biologists ; Biology ; Bryophyta - genetics ; Bryophytes ; Communication ; Embryophyta - genetics ; Evolution ; evo‐devo ; land plant phylogeny ; Magnoliopsida - genetics ; Marchantia ; Phylogenetics ; Phylogeny ; Physcomitrella ; Plants ; Systematics ; tree‐thinking ; Viewpoints</subject><ispartof>The New phytologist, 2021-05, Vol.230 (4), p.1300-1304</ispartof><rights>2021 The Authors © 2021 New Phytologist Foundation</rights><rights>2021 The Author © 2021 New Phytologist Foundation</rights><rights>2021 The Author New Phytologist © 2021 New Phytologist Foundation.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2021 New Phytologist Trust</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4101-ab12896c7da2faf582338ab52a65092c6c3ce00a6a481fda372fecef1a76f2db3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4101-ab12896c7da2faf582338ab52a65092c6c3ce00a6a481fda372fecef1a76f2db3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-5435-7377</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fnph.17241$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fnph.17241$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,1427,27903,27904,45553,45554,46387,46811</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33521973$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>McDaniel, Stuart F.</creatorcontrib><title>Bryophytes are not early diverging land plants</title><title>The New phytologist</title><addtitle>New Phytol</addtitle><description>Phylogenetic trees have permeated biology. However, an understanding ofhowto interpret phylogenies has lagged behind, notably in publications outside of evolutionary biology. Here I argue that some language commonly used in plant systematics has contributed to the confusion by describing phylogenetic trees using intuitive but misleading terms reminiscent of Aristotle’s Scala Naturae. These terms (perhaps inadvertently) misrepresent evolution, not as a process acting on all living species, but rather as a progression of successively diverging lineages leading to a group that represents a subjectively defined endpoint.Mygoal here is to show how thinking of the tree of life in terms of early-diverging lineages and higher groups can distort evolutionary literacy, confound interdisciplinary communication, and potentially bias research agendas. I focus on the relationship between bryophytes and angiosperms as a case study, but the theme applies to all branches of the tree of life. Fortunately, evolutionary biologists have developed an easily understood alternative framework – tree thinking – which I highlight as a means to promote a clear understanding of phylogenies across sub-disciplines of biology, and between practicing biologists and students, or members the public which funds much of our work.</description><subject>Angiosperms</subject><subject>Aquatic plants</subject><subject>Biological evolution</subject><subject>Biologists</subject><subject>Biology</subject><subject>Bryophyta - genetics</subject><subject>Bryophytes</subject><subject>Communication</subject><subject>Embryophyta - genetics</subject><subject>Evolution</subject><subject>evo‐devo</subject><subject>land plant phylogeny</subject><subject>Magnoliopsida - genetics</subject><subject>Marchantia</subject><subject>Phylogenetics</subject><subject>Phylogeny</subject><subject>Physcomitrella</subject><subject>Plants</subject><subject>Systematics</subject><subject>tree‐thinking</subject><subject>Viewpoints</subject><issn>0028-646X</issn><issn>1469-8137</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kLFOwzAQhi0EoqUw8ACgSCwwpLXPju2MUAFFQsAAEpvlJk6bKk2CnYDy9hjSdkDihrvl-3-dPoROCR4TP5OyXo6JAEb20JAwHoeSULGPhhiDDDnj7wN05NwKYxxHHA7RgNIISCzoEI1vbFfVy64xLtDWBGXVBEbbogvS_NPYRV4ugkKXaVD73bhjdJDpwpmTzR2ht7vb1-ksfHy-f5heP4YJI5iEek5AxjwRqYZMZ5EESqWeR6B5hGNIeEITg7HmmkmSpZoKyExiMqIFzyCd0xG67HtrW320xjVqnbvEFP4JU7VOAZOMRCIG4dGLP-iqam3pv1MQEeBMAAZPXfVUYivnrMlUbfO1tp0iWP1IVF6i-pXo2fNNYztfm3RHbq15YNIDX3lhuv-b1NPLbFt51idWrqnsLgGCCBlTRr8BO_2Dlw</recordid><startdate>20210501</startdate><enddate>20210501</enddate><creator>McDaniel, Stuart F.</creator><general>Wiley</general><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>H95</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5435-7377</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20210501</creationdate><title>Bryophytes are not early diverging land plants</title><author>McDaniel, Stuart F.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4101-ab12896c7da2faf582338ab52a65092c6c3ce00a6a481fda372fecef1a76f2db3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Angiosperms</topic><topic>Aquatic plants</topic><topic>Biological evolution</topic><topic>Biologists</topic><topic>Biology</topic><topic>Bryophyta - genetics</topic><topic>Bryophytes</topic><topic>Communication</topic><topic>Embryophyta - genetics</topic><topic>Evolution</topic><topic>evo‐devo</topic><topic>land plant phylogeny</topic><topic>Magnoliopsida - genetics</topic><topic>Marchantia</topic><topic>Phylogenetics</topic><topic>Phylogeny</topic><topic>Physcomitrella</topic><topic>Plants</topic><topic>Systematics</topic><topic>tree‐thinking</topic><topic>Viewpoints</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>McDaniel, Stuart F.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>The New phytologist</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>McDaniel, Stuart F.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Bryophytes are not early diverging land plants</atitle><jtitle>The New phytologist</jtitle><addtitle>New Phytol</addtitle><date>2021-05-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>230</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>1300</spage><epage>1304</epage><pages>1300-1304</pages><issn>0028-646X</issn><eissn>1469-8137</eissn><abstract>Phylogenetic trees have permeated biology. However, an understanding ofhowto interpret phylogenies has lagged behind, notably in publications outside of evolutionary biology. Here I argue that some language commonly used in plant systematics has contributed to the confusion by describing phylogenetic trees using intuitive but misleading terms reminiscent of Aristotle’s Scala Naturae. These terms (perhaps inadvertently) misrepresent evolution, not as a process acting on all living species, but rather as a progression of successively diverging lineages leading to a group that represents a subjectively defined endpoint.Mygoal here is to show how thinking of the tree of life in terms of early-diverging lineages and higher groups can distort evolutionary literacy, confound interdisciplinary communication, and potentially bias research agendas. I focus on the relationship between bryophytes and angiosperms as a case study, but the theme applies to all branches of the tree of life. Fortunately, evolutionary biologists have developed an easily understood alternative framework – tree thinking – which I highlight as a means to promote a clear understanding of phylogenies across sub-disciplines of biology, and between practicing biologists and students, or members the public which funds much of our work.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Wiley</pub><pmid>33521973</pmid><doi>10.1111/nph.17241</doi><tpages>5</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5435-7377</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0028-646X |
ispartof | The New phytologist, 2021-05, Vol.230 (4), p.1300-1304 |
issn | 0028-646X 1469-8137 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2484157927 |
source | MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; Wiley Free Content |
subjects | Angiosperms Aquatic plants Biological evolution Biologists Biology Bryophyta - genetics Bryophytes Communication Embryophyta - genetics Evolution evo‐devo land plant phylogeny Magnoliopsida - genetics Marchantia Phylogenetics Phylogeny Physcomitrella Plants Systematics tree‐thinking Viewpoints |
title | Bryophytes are not early diverging land plants |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-26T19%3A29%3A17IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Bryophytes%20are%20not%20early%20diverging%20land%20plants&rft.jtitle=The%20New%20phytologist&rft.au=McDaniel,%20Stuart%20F.&rft.date=2021-05-01&rft.volume=230&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=1300&rft.epage=1304&rft.pages=1300-1304&rft.issn=0028-646X&rft.eissn=1469-8137&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/nph.17241&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E27178934%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2512647202&rft_id=info:pmid/33521973&rft_jstor_id=27178934&rfr_iscdi=true |