0
Which of the following are problematic when the goal is to construct phylogenies that accurately reflect evolutionary history A monophyletic taxa B polyphyletic taxa C paraphyletic taxa?
Wiki User
∙ 12y ago
Paraphyletic taxa. Check the meaning of that suffix.
Wiki User
∙ 12y ago
Polyphyletic and paraphyletic taxa are problematic when the goal is to construct phylogenies that accurately reflect evolutionary history. These taxa do not accurately represent the evolutionary relationships between species and can lead to incorrect interpretations. Monophyletic taxa, on the other hand, are ideal for constructing phylogenies as they include all descendants of a common ancestor.
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Molecular phylogenies show all land plants are a monophyletic group This suggests that . A. there was a single transition from aquatic to terrestrial habitats B. land plants have undergone?
There was a single transition from aquatic to terrestrial habitats
What is the relationship between the fossil record and the scientific theory of evolution?
The fossil record independently confirms the general hypothesis of common descent, and allows palaeontologists and evolutionary biologists to confirm specific proposed phylogenies as well as specific hypotheses about the evolutionary past of various lineages.
What is organismal phylogeny?
The oldest use for phylogenies of genes is inferring organismal phylogeny (Fitch, 1996)
How can comparative anatomy provide support for the theory of evolution?
1. The adherence of anatomical traits to the nested hierarchies of biology confirms common ancestry in general. 2. Assays of anatomical traits can be used to formulate new phylogenies or refine/confirm existing phylogenies.
What methods are used to determine phylogenies?
Phylogeny is discovered using molecular sequencing data and morphological data matrices.
What is Evidence for embryology?
Embryological development in animals displays the same set of nested hierarchies that is known from comparative morphology and genetics, and thus evidence for common descent.Nota bene: this adherence to nested hierarchies is not to be confused with the 19th century hypothesis of ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny. Embryos do not go through evolutionary stages during their development, but they dodisplay atavistic developments that are consistent with phylogenies based on other sources.
How can embryos be used to show evidence of evolution?
Embryological development in animals displays the same set of nested hierarchies that is known from comparative morphology and genetics, and thus evidence for common descent.Nota bene: this adherence to nested hierarchies is not to be confused with the 19th century hypothesis of ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny. Embryos do not go through evolutionary stages during their development, but they dodisplay atavistic developments that are consistent with phylogenies based on other sources.
Reconstructing phylogenies by inferring relationships based on similarities derived from a common ancestor without considering the strength of a character is called?
It's called cladistics.
What is embryological evidences?
Embryological development in animals displays the same set of nested hierarchies that is known from comparative morphology and genetics, and thus evidence for common descent.Nota bene: this adherence to nested hierarchies is not to be confused with the 19th century hypothesis of ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny. Embryos do not go through evolutionary stages during their development, but they dodisplay atavistic developments that are consistent with phylogenies based on other sources.
Compare and contrast the classification system used by Linnaeus to system used now?
Over time, our understanding of the relationships between living things has changed. Linnaeus could only base his scheme on the structural similarities of the different organisms. The greatest change was the widespread acceptance of evolution as the mechanism of biological diversity and species formation. It then became generally understood that classifications ought to reflect the phylogeny of organisms, by grouping each taxon so as to include the common ancestor of the group's members (and thus to avoid polyphyly). Such taxa may be either monophyletic (including all descendants) such as genus Homo, or paraphyletic (excluding some descendants), such as genus Australopithecus. Originally, Linnaeus established three kingdoms in his scheme, namely Plantae, Animalia and an additional group for minerals, which has long since been abandoned. Since then, various life forms have been moved into three new kingdoms: Monera, for prokaryotes (i.e., bacteria); Protista, for protozoans and most algae; and Fungi. This five kingdom scheme is still far from the phylogenetic ideal and has largely been supplanted in modern taxonomic work by a division into three domains: Bacteria and Archaea, which contain the prokaryotes, and Eukaryota, comprising the remaining forms. This change was precipitated by the discovery of the Archaea. These arrangements should not be seen as definitive. They are based on the genomes of the organisms; as knowledge on this increases, so will the categories change. Reflecting truly evolutionary relationships, especially given the wide acceptance of cladistic methodology and numerous molecular phylogenies that have challenged long-accepted classifications, has proved problematic within the framework of Linnaean taxonomy. Therefore, some systematists have proposed a Phylocode to replace it. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linnaean_taxonomy
Why might scientists disagree with each other about the history of evolution?
Though the basics are settled some questions still remain. One of the biggest arguments in evolution now is the argument of the exact evolutionary history of the human lineage, and its relationships to its closest relatives, past and present. The discussion about specific phylogenies remains because the genetic evidence is, while more precise than any other line, not so accurate as to allow only one phylogeny for each assay. Also, there remains plenty to discuss on the subjects of mechanisms. Drift, biased gene conversion, plenty other mechanisms affect evolution - but to what degree?
Should Darwin's theories discussed in geology or biology?
Although natural selection is affected by geology, and some knowledge of geology is certainly necessary to be able to interpret the evidence for the various phylogenies of evolution, these theories themselves do not affect geology. Evolution therefore remains a matter of biology, not geology.
