In taxonomy, a group is paraphyletic if it consists of the group's last common ancestor and all descendants of that ancestor excluding a few—typically only one or two—monophyletic subgroups. The group is said to be paraphyletic with respect to the excluded subgroups. The arrangement of the members of a paraphyletic group is called a paraphyly. The term is commonly used in phylogenetics (a subfield of biology) and in linguistics.

The term was coined to apply to well-known taxa like Reptilia (reptiles) which, as commonly named and traditionally defined, is paraphyletic with respect to mammals and birds. Reptilia contains the last common ancestor of reptiles and all descendants of that ancestor, including all extant reptiles as well as the extinct synapsids, except for mammals and birds. Other commonly recognized paraphyletic groups include fish, monkeys, and lizards.[1]

If many subgroups are missing from the named group, it is said to be polyparaphyletic. A paraphyletic group cannot be a clade, or monophyletic group, which is any group of species that includes a common ancestor and all of its descendants. Formally, a paraphyletic group is the relative complement of one or more subclades within a clade: removing one or more subclades leaves a paraphyletic group.

Traditional Reptilia
Reptilia (green field) is a paraphyletic group comprising all amniotes (Amniota) except for two subgroups: Mammalia (mammals) and Aves (birds); therefore, Reptilia is not a clade. In contrast, Amniota itself is a clade, which is a monophyletic group.


The term paraphyly, or paraphyletic, derives from the two Ancient Greek words παρά (pará), meaning "beside, near", and φῦλον (phûlon), meaning "genus, species",[2][3] and refers to the situation in which one or several monophyletic subgroups of organisms (e.g., genera, species) are left apart from all other descendants of a unique common ancestor.

Conversely, the term monophyly, or monophyletic, builds on the Ancient Greek prefix μόνος (mónos), meaning "alone, only, unique",[2][3] and refers to the fact that a monophyletic group includes organisms consisting of all the descendants of a unique common ancestor.

By comparison, the term polyphyly, or polyphyletic, uses the Ancient Greek prefix πολύς (polús), meaning "many, a lot of",[2][3] and refers to the fact that a polyphyletic group includes organisms arising from multiple ancestral sources.


Monophyly, paraphyly, polyphyly
Cladogram of the primates, showing a monophyly (the simians, in yellow), a paraphyly (the prosimians, in blue, including the red patch), and a polyphyly (the night-active primates, the lorises and the tarsiers, in red).

In cladistics

Groups that include all the descendants of a common ancestor are said to be monophyletic. A paraphyletic group is a monophyletic group from which one or more subsidiary clades (monophyletic groups) are excluded to form a separate group. Ereshefsky has argued that paraphyletic taxa are the result of anagenesis in the excluded group or groups.[4]

A group whose identifying features evolved convergently in two or more lineages is polyphyletic (Greek πολύς [polys], "many"). More broadly, any taxon that is not paraphyletic or monophyletic can be called polyphyletic.

These terms were developed during the debates of the 1960s and 1970s accompanying the rise of cladistics.

Paraphyletic groupings are considered problematic by many taxonomists, as it is not possible to talk precisely about their phylogenetic relationships, their characteristic traits and literal extinction.[5][6] Related terminology that may be encountered are stem group, chronospecies, budding cladogenesis, anagenesis, or 'grade' groupings. Paraphyletic groups are often a relic from previous erroneous assessments about phylogenic relationships, or from before the rise of cladistics.[7]


Wasps are Paraphyletic
Wasps are paraphyletic, consisting of the clade Apocrita without ants and bees, which are not usually considered to be wasps; the sawflies ("Symphyta") too are paraphyletic, as the Apocrita are nested inside the Symphytan clades.

The prokaryotes (single-celled life forms without cell nuclei), because they exclude the eukaryotes, a descendant group. Bacteria and Archaea are prokaryotes, but archaea and eukaryotes share a common ancestor that is not ancestral to the bacteria. The prokaryote/eukaryote distinction was proposed by Edouard Chatton in 1937[8] and was generally accepted after being adopted by Roger Stanier and C.B. van Niel in 1962. The botanical code (the ICBN, now the ICN) abandoned consideration of bacterial nomenclature in 1975; currently, prokaryotic nomenclature is regulated under the ICNB with a starting date of January 1, 1980 (in contrast to a 1753 start date under the ICBN/ICN).[9]

Among plants, dicotyledons (in the traditional sense) are paraphyletic because the group excludes monocotyledons. "Dicotyledon" has not been used as an ICBN classification for decades, but is allowed as a synonym of Magnoliopsida.[note 1] Phylogenetic analysis indicates that the monocots are a development from a dicot ancestor. Excluding monocots from the dicots makes the latter a paraphyletic group.[10]

Among animals, several familiar groups are not, in fact, clades. The order Artiodactyla (even-toed ungulates) is paraphyletic because it excludes Cetaceans (whales, dolphins, etc.). In the ICZN Code, the two taxa are orders of equal rank. Molecular studies, however, have shown that the Cetacea descend from artiodactyl ancestors, although the precise phylogeny within the order remains uncertain. Without the Cetacean descendants the Artiodactyls must be paraphyletic.[11] The class Reptilia as traditionally defined is paraphyletic because it excludes birds (class Aves) and mammals. In the ICZN Code, the three taxa are classes of equal rank. However, mammals hail from the synapsids (which were once described as "mammal-like reptiles") and birds are descended from the dinosaurs (a group of Diapsida), both of which are reptiles.[12] Alternatively, reptiles are paraphyletic because they gave rise to (only) birds. Birds and reptiles together make Sauropsids. Osteichthyes, bony fish, are paraphyletic when they include only Actinopterygii (ray-finned fish) and Sarcopterygii (lungfish, etc.), excluding tetrapods; more recently, Osteichthyes is treated as a clade, including the tetrapods.[13][14] The wasps are paraphyletic, consisting of the narrow-waisted Apocrita without the ants and bees.[15] The sawflies (Symphyta) are similarly paraphyletic, forming all of the Hymenoptera except for the Apocrita, a clade deep within the sawfly tree.[13] Crustaceans are not a clade because the Hexapoda (insects) are excluded. The modern clade that spans all of them is the Tetraconata.[16][17]

Paraphyly in species

Species have a special status in systematics as being an observable feature of nature itself and as the basic unit of classification.[18] The phylogenetic species concept requires species to be monophyletic, but paraphyletic species are common in nature. Paraphyly is common in speciation, whereby a mother species (a paraspecies) gives rise to a daughter species without itself becoming extinct.[19] Research indicates as many as 20 percent of all animal species and between 20 and 50 percent of plant species are paraphyletic.[20][21] Accounting for these facts, some taxonomists argue that paraphyly is a trait of nature that should be acknowledged at higher taxonomic levels.[22][23]

Uses for paraphyletic groups

When the appearance of significant traits has led a subclade on an evolutionary path very divergent from that of a more inclusive clade, it often makes sense to study the paraphyletic group that remains without considering the larger clade. For example, the Neogene evolution of the Artiodactyla (even-toed ungulates, like deer) has taken place in an environment so different from that of the Cetacea (whales, dolphins, and porpoises) that the Artiodactyla are often studied in isolation even though the cetaceans are a descendant group. The prokaryote group is another example; it is paraphyletic because it excludes many of its descendant organisms (the eukaryotes), but it is very useful because it has a clearly defined and significant distinction (absence of a cell nucleus, a plesiomorphy) from its excluded descendants.

Also, paraphyletic groups are involved in evolutionary transitions, the development of the first tetrapods from their ancestors for example. Any name given to these ancestors to distinguish them from tetrapods—"fish", for example—necessarily picks out a paraphyletic group, because the descendant tetrapods are not included.[24]

The term "evolutionary grade" is sometimes used for paraphyletic groups.[25] Moreover, the concepts of monophyly, paraphyly, and polyphyly have been used in deducing key genes for barcoding of diverse group of species[26].

Independently evolved traits

Viviparity, the production of offspring without the laying of a fertilized egg, developed independently in the lineages that led to humans (Homo sapiens) and southern water skinks (Eulampus tympanum, a kind of lizard). Put another way, at least one of the lineages that led to these species from their last common ancestor contains nonviviparous animals, the pelycosaurs ancestral to mammals; vivipary appeared subsequently in the mammal lineage.

Independently-developed traits like these cannot be used to distinguish paraphyletic groups because paraphyly requires the excluded groups to be monophyletic. Pelycosaurs were descended from the last common ancestor of skinks and humans, so vivipary could be paraphyletic only if the pelycosaurs were part of an excluded monophyletic group. Because this group is monophyletic, it contains all descendants of the pelycosaurs; because it is excluded, it contains no viviparous animals. This does not work, because humans are among these descendants. Vivipary in a group that includes humans and skinks cannot be paraphyletic.

Not paraphyly

  • Amphibious fish are polyphyletic, not paraphyletic. Although they appear similar, several different groups of amphibious fishes such as mudskippers and lungfishes evolved independently in a process of convergent evolution in distant relatives faced with similar ecological circumstances.[27]
  • Flightless birds are polyphyletic because they independently (in parallel) lost the ability to fly.[28]
  • Animals with a dorsal fin are not paraphyletic, even though their last common ancestor may have had such a fin, because the Mesozoic ancestors of porpoises did not have such a fin, whereas pre-Mesozoic fish did have one.
  • Quadrupedal archosaurs are not a paraphyletic group. Bipedal dinosaurs like Eoraptor, ancestral to quadrupedal ones, were descendants of the last common ancestor of quadrupedal dinosaurs and other quadrupedal archosaurs like the crocodilians.

Non-exhaustive list of paraphyletic groups

The following list recapitulates a number of paraphyletic groups proposed in the literature, and provides the corresponding monophyletic taxa.

Paraphyletic taxon Excluded clades Corresponding monophyletic taxon References and notes
Prokaryotes Eukaryota Cellular organisms [29]
Protista Animalia, Plantae, and Fungi Eukaryota [30]
Invertebrates Vertebrata Animalia [31]
Sponge Eumetazoa Animalia [32] [33]
Worm Lots of Groups Nephrozoa [34][35]
Radiata Bilateria Eumetazoa [36]
Platyzoa Lophotrochozoa, Mesozoa Spiralia [37]
Fish Tetrapoda Vertebrate [38]
Reptiles Birds Sauropsida [39]
Lizard Snakes, Amphisbaenia Squamates [40]
Plagiaulacidans Cimolodonta, Arginbaataridae Multituberculata [41]
Pelycosaurs Therapsida Synapsida [42]
Even-toed ungulates Cetacea Cetartiodactyla [43][44]
Archaeoceti Neoceti Cetacea [45]
Prosimians Simiiformes Primates [46]
Crustaceans Hexapoda Tetraconata [16][17]
Wasps Ants, Bees Apocrita [47]
Sawfly Apocrita Hymenoptera [13]
Vespoidea Apoidea, Ants Euaculeata [48]
Parasitica Aculeata Apocrita [49]
Nautiloidea Ammonoidea, Coleoidea Cephalopoda [50]
Charophyte Embryophyte (Land plants) Streptophyta [51]
Bryophyte Tracheophyte Embryophyte [52][51]
Gymnosperm Angiosperm Spermatophyte [53]
Dicotyledon Monocotyledon Angiosperm [10]
Moth Butterfly Lepidoptera [54]
Coral Medusozoa, Myxozoa Cnidaria [55][56]
Jellyfish Hydroidolina Medusozoa [57][58][59]
Cycloneuralia Panarthropoda Ecdysozoa [60][61]
Rotifera Acanthocephala Syndermata [62][63]
Mecoptera Siphonaptera Mecopteroidea
Anthoathecata Leptothecata, Siphonophorae Hydroidolina


The concept of paraphyly has also been applied to historical linguistics, where the methods of cladistics have found some utility in comparing languages. For instance, the Formosan languages form a paraphyletic group of the Austronesian languages because they consist of the nine branches of the Austronesian family that are not Malayo-Polynesian and are restricted to the island of Taiwan.[64]

See also


  1. ^ The history of flowering plant classification can be found under History of the classification of flowering plants.


  1. ^ Romer, A.S. (1949): The Vertebrate Body. W.B. Saunders, Philadelphia. (2nd ed. 1955; 3rd ed. 1962; 4th ed. 1970)
  2. ^ a b c Bailly, Anatole (1 January 1981). Abrégé du dictionnaire grec français. Paris: Hachette. ISBN 978-2010035289. OCLC 461974285.
  3. ^ a b c Bailly, Anatole. "Greek-french dictionary online". Retrieved 8 March 2018.
  4. ^ Roberts, Keith (10 December 2007). Handbook of Plant Science. ISBN 9780470057230.
  5. ^ Schilhab, Theresa; Stjernfelt, Frederik; Deacon, Terrence (2012). The Symbolic Species Evolved. Springer. ISBN 9789400723351.
  6. ^ Villmoare, Brian (2018). "Early Homo and the role of the genus in paleoanthropology". American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 165: 72–89. doi:10.1002/ajpa.23387. PMID 29380889.
  7. ^ Dominguez, Eduardo; Wheeler, Quentin D. (1997). "Forum - Taxonomic Stability is Ignorance". Cladistics. 13 (4): 367–372. doi:10.1111/j.1096-0031.1997.tb00325.x.
  8. ^ Sapp, Jan (June 2005). "The prokaryote–eukaryote dichotomy: meanings and mythology". Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews. 69 (2): 292–305. doi:10.1128/MMBR.69.2.292-305.2005. PMC 1197417. PMID 15944457.
  9. ^ Stackebrabdt, E.; Tindell, B.; Ludwig, W.; Goodfellow, M. (1999). "Prokaryotic Diversity and Systematics". In Lengeler, Joseph W.; Drews, Gerhart; Schlegel, Hans Günter (eds.). Biology of the prokaryotes. Stuttgart: Georg Thieme Verlag. p. 679.
  10. ^ a b Simpson 2006, pp. 139–140. "It is now thought that the possession of two cotyledons is an ancestral feature for the taxa of the flowering plants and not an apomorphy for any group within. The 'dicots' ... are paraphyletic ...."
  11. ^ O'Leary, Maureen A. (2001). "The phylogenetic position of cetaceans: further combined data analyses, comparisons with the stratigraphic record and a discussion of character optimization". American Zoologist. 41 (3): 487–506. CiteSeerX doi:10.1093/icb/41.3.487.
  12. ^ Romer, A. S. & Parsons, T. S. (1985): The Vertebrate Body. (6th ed.) Saunders, Philadelphia.
  13. ^ a b c Sharkey, M. J. (2007). "Phylogeny and classification of Hymenoptera" (PDF). Zootaxa. 1668: 521–548. Symphyta and Apocrita have long been considered as suborders of Hymenoptera but since recognition of the paraphyletic nature of the Symphyta (Köningsmann 1977, Rasnitsyn 1988) and the advent of cladistic methods the subordinal classification should be avoided. Likewise the woodwasps are thought to be non-monophyletic, forming a grade that is ancestral relative to Apocrita and Orussidae. The traditional hymenopteran classification is faulty, by cladistic criteria,in the same way as pre-cladistic vertebrate classifications in which groups sharing plesiomorphic characterswere recognized as natural, e.g., fishes were once grouped together as 'Pisces', which excluded tetrapods.
  14. ^ Betancur-R, Ricardo; et al. (2013). "The Tree of Life and a New Classification of Bony Fishes". PLOS Currents Tree of Life. 5 (Edition 1). doi:10.1371/currents.tol.53ba26640df0ccaee75bb165c8c26288. PMC 3644299. PMID 23653398. Archived from the original on 13 October 2013.
  15. ^ Johnson, Brian R.; Borowiec, Marek L.; Chiu, Joanna C.; Lee, Ernest K.; Atallah, Joel; Ward, Philip S. (2013). "Phylogenomics Resolves Evolutionary Relationships among Ants, Bees, and Wasps" (PDF). Current Biology. 23 (20): 2058–2062. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2013.08.050. PMID 24094856.
  16. ^ a b David R. Andrew (2011). "A new view of insect–crustacean relationships II. Inferences from expressed sequence tags and comparisons with neural cladistics". Arthropod Structure & Development. 40 (3): 289–302. doi:10.1016/j.asd.2011.02.001. PMID 21315832. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "Andrew2011" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  17. ^ a b Bjoern, M.; von Reumont, Ronald A.; Jenner, Matthew A.; Wills, Emiliano; Dell'Ampio, Günther; Pass, Ingo; Ebersberger, Benjamin; Meyer, Stefan; Koenemann, Thomas M. Iliffe (2012). "Pancrustacean phylogeny in the light of new phylogenomic data: support for Remipedia as the possible sister group of Hexapoda". Molecular Biology and Evolution. 29 (3): 1031–1045. doi:10.1093/molbev/msr270. PMID 22049065. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "Bjoern2012" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  18. ^ Queiroz, Kevin; Donoghue, Michael J. (December 1988). "Phylogenetic Systematics and the Species Problem". Cladistics. 4 (4): 317–338. doi:10.1111/j.1096-0031.1988.tb00518.x.
  19. ^ James S. Albert; Roberto E. Reis (8 March 2011). Historical Biogeography of Neotropical Freshwater Fishes. University of California Press. p. 308. ISBN 9780520268685. Retrieved 28 June 2011.
  20. ^ Ross, Howard A. (July 2014). "The incidence of species-level paraphyly in animals: A re-assessment". Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. 76: 10–17. doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2014.02.021. PMID 24583289.
  21. ^ Crisp, M.D.; Chandler, G.T. (1 July 1996). "Paraphyletic species". Telopea. 6 (4): 813–844. doi:10.7751/telopea19963037. Retrieved 22 January 2015.
  22. ^ Zander, Richard (2013). Framework for Post-Phylogenetic Systematics. St. Louis: Zetetic Publications, Amazon CreateSpace.
  23. ^ Aubert, D. (2015). "A formal analysis of phylogenetic terminology: Towards a reconsideration of the current paradigm in systematics". Phytoneuron. 66: 1–54.
  24. ^ Kazlev, M.A. & White, T. "Amphibians, Systematics, and Cladistics". Palaeos website. Retrieved 16 August 2012.
  25. ^ Dawkins, Richard (2004). "Mammal-like Reptiles". The Ancestor's Tale, A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Life. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 978-0-618-00583-3.
  26. ^ Parhi J., Tripathy P.S., Priyadarshi, H., Mandal S.C., Pandey P.K. (2019). "Diagnosis of mitogenome for robust phylogeny: A case of Cypriniformes fish group". Gene. 713: 143967. doi:10.1016/j.gene.2019.143967. PMID 31279710.CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link)
  27. ^ Kutschera, Ulrich; Elliott, J Malcolm (26 March 2013). "Do mudskippers and lungfishes elucidate the early evolution of four-limbed vertebrates?". Evolution: Education and Outreach. 6 (8): 8. doi:10.1186/1936-6434-6-8.
  28. ^ Harshman, John; Braun, Edward L.; et al. (2 September 2008). "Phylogenomic evidence for multiple losses of flight in ratite birds". PNAS. 105 (36): 13462–13467. Bibcode:2008PNAS..10513462H. doi:10.1073/pnas.0803242105. PMC 2533212. PMID 18765814.
  29. ^ Berg, Linda (2008). Introductory Botany: Plants, People, and the Environment (2nd ed.). Belmont CA: Thomson Corporation. p. 360. ISBN 0-03-075453-4.
  30. ^ Protists – A textbook example for a paraphyletic taxon☆ .
  31. ^ Agassiz, Louis (21 March 2013). Essay on Classification. Courier. pp. 115–. ISBN 978-0-486-15135-9.
  32. ^ Borchiellini, C.; Manuel, M.; Alivon, E.; Boury-Esnault, N.; Vacelet, J.; Le Parco, Y. (8 January 2001). "Sponge paraphyly and the origin of Metazoa". Journal of Evolutionary Biology. 14 (1): 171–179. doi:10.1046/j.1420-9101.2001.00244.x.
  33. ^ Philippe, H; Derelle, R; Lopez, P.; et al. (April 2009). "Phylogenomics revives traditional views on deep animal relationships". Curr. Biol. 19 (8): 706–12. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2009.02.052. PMID 19345102.CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link)
  34. ^ New data on Kimberella, the Vendian mollusc-like organism (White sea region, Russia): palaeoecological and evolutionary implications (2007), "Fedonkin, M.A.; Simonetta, A; Ivantsov, A.Y.", in Vickers-Rich, Patricia; Komarower, Patricia (eds.), The Rise and Fall of the Ediacaran Biota, Special publications, 286, London: Geological Society, pp. 157–179, doi:10.1144/SP286.12, ISBN 9781862392335, OCLC 156823511CS1 maint: Uses authors parameter (link)
  35. ^ Butterfield, N.J. (December 2006). "Hooking some stem-group "worms": fossil lophotrochozoans in the Burgess Shale". BioEssays. 28 (12): 1161–6. doi:10.1002/bies.20507. PMID 17120226.
  36. ^ Martindale, Mark; Finnerty, J.R.; Henry, J.Q. (September 2002). "The Radiata and the evolutionary origins of the bilaterian body plan". Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. 24 (3): 358–365. doi:10.1016/s1055-7903(02)00208-7.
  37. ^ Gnathifera - Richard C. Brusca
  38. ^ Tree of life web project – Chordates Archived 24 February 2007 at the Wayback Machine.
  39. ^ Tudge, Colin (2000). The Variety of Life. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0198604262.
  40. ^ Reeder, Tod W.; Townsend, Ted M.; Mulcahy, Daniel G.; Noonan, Brice P.; Wood, Perry L.; Sites, Jack W.; Wiens, John J. (2015). "Integrated Analyses Resolve Conflicts over Squamate Reptile Phylogeny and Reveal Unexpected Placements for Fossil Taxa". PLOS ONE. 10 (3): e0118199. Bibcode:2015PLoSO..1018199R. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0118199. PMC 4372529. PMID 25803280.
  41. ^ Kielan-Jaworowska, Z. & Hurum, J. (2001). "Phylogeny and Systematics of Multituberculate Animals". Palaeontology. 44 (3): 389–429. doi:10.1111/1475-4983.00185.
  42. ^ Benton, Michael J. (2004). Vertebrate palaeontology (3rd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell Science. ISBN 978-0-632-05637-8.
  43. ^ O'Leary, Maureen A. (2001). "The Phylogenetic Position of Cetaceans: Further Combined Data Analyses, Comparisons with the Stratigraphic Record and a Discussion of Character Optimization". American Zoologist. 41 (3): 487–506. doi:10.1093/icb/41.3.487.
  44. ^ Savage, R. J. G. & Long, M. R. (1986). Mammal Evolution: an illustrated guide. New York: Facts on File. p. 208. ISBN 0-8160-1194-X.
  45. ^ Thewissen, J. G. M.; Williams, E. M. (2002). "The Early Radiations of Cetacea (Mammalia): Evolutionary Pattern and Developmental Correlations". Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 33: 73–90. doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.33.020602.095426. OCLC 4656321698.
  46. ^ Groves, C. P. (1998). "Systematics of tarsiers and lorises". Primates. 39 (1): 13–27. doi:10.1007/BF02557740.
  47. ^ Johnson, Brian R.; Borowiec, Marek L.; Chiu, Joanna C.; Lee, Ernest K.; Atallah, Joel; Ward, Philip S. (2013). "Phylogenomics Resolves Evolutionary Relationships among Ants, Bees, and Wasps" (PDF). Current Biology. 23 (20): 2058–2062. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2013.08.050. PMID 24094856.
  48. ^ Johnson, B.R.; et al. (2013). "Phylogenomics Resolves Evolutionary Relationships among Ants, Bees, and Wasps". Current Biology. 23 (20): 2058–2062. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2013.08.050. PMID 24094856.
  49. ^ Parasitic Hymenoptera (Parasitica). RL Zuparko, Encyclopedia of Entomology, 2004
  50. ^ Lindgren, A. R.; Giribet, G.; Nishiguchi, M. K. (2004). "A combined approach to the phylogeny of Cephalopoda (Mollusca)". Cladistics. 20 (5): 454–486. doi:10.1111/j.1096-0031.2004.00032.x.
  51. ^ a b Becker, B.; Marin, B. (2009). "Streptophyte algae and the origin of embryophytes". Annals of Botany. 103 (7): 999–1004. doi:10.1093/aob/mcp044. PMC 2707909. PMID 19273476.
  52. ^ Cox, Cymon J.; Li, Blaise; Foster, Peter G.; Embley, T. Martin & Civáň, Peter (2014). "Conflicting Phylogenies for Early Land Plants are Caused by Composition Biases among Synonymous Substitutions". Systematic Biology. 63 (2): 272–279. doi:10.1093/sysbio/syt109. PMC 3926305. PMID 24399481.
  53. ^ Christenhusz, M.J.M.; Reveal, J.L.; Farjon, A.; Gardner, M.F.; Mill, R.R.; Chase, M.W. (2011). "A new classification and linear sequence of extant gymnosperms" (PDF). Phytotaxa. 19: 55–70.
  54. ^ Scoble, MJ 1995. The Lepidoptera: form, function and diversity. Oxford, UK: The Oxford University Press; 404 p.
  55. ^ Stampar, S.N.; Maronna, M.M.; Kitahara, M.V.; Reimer, J.D.; Morandini, A.C. (2014). "Fast-Evolving Mitochondrial DNA in Ceriantharia: A Reflection of Hexacorallia Paraphyly?". PLoS ONE. 9 (1): e86612. Bibcode:2014PLoSO...986612S. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0086612. PMC 3903554. PMID 24475157.
  56. ^ Ruppert, Edward E.; Fox, Richard, S.; Barnes, Robert D. (2004). Invertebrate Zoology, 7th edition. Cengage Learning. pp. 132–48. ISBN 978-81-315-0104-7.
  57. ^ Zou, H.; Zhang, J.; Li, W.; Wu, S.; Wang, G. (2012). "Mitochondrial Genome of the Freshwater Jellyfish Craspedacusta sowerbyi and Phylogenetics of Medusozoa". PLoS ONE. 7 (12): e51465. Bibcode:2012PLoSO...751465Z. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0051465. PMC 3519871. PMID 23240028.
  58. ^ Marques, Antonio C.; Allen G. Collins (March 2004). "Cladistic analysis of Medusozoa and cnidarian evolution". Invertebrate Biology. 123 (1). pp. 23–42. doi:10.1111/j.1744-7410.2004.tb00139.x.
  59. ^ Zapata et al. 2015. Phylogenomic analyses support traditional relationships within Cnidaria. PLOS ONE. open access
  60. ^ Dunn, et al., 2008; Dunn, CW; Hejnol, A; Matus, DQ; Pang, K; Browne, WE; Smith, SA; Seaver, E; Rouse, GW; et al. (2008). "Broad phylogenomic sampling improves resolution of the animal tree of life". Nature 452 (7188): 745–749.
  61. ^ Webster, Bonnie L.; Copley, Richard R.; Jenner, Ronald A.; Mackenzie-Dodds, Jacqueline A.; Bourlat, Sarah J.; Rota-Stabelli, Omar; Littlewood, D. T. J.; Telford, Maximilian J. (November 2006). "Mitogenomics and phylogenomics reveal priapulid worms as extant models of the ancestral Ecdysozoan". Evolution & Development. 8 (6): 502–510. doi:10.1111/j.1525-142X.2006.00123.x.
  62. ^ Ruppert, Edward E.; Fox, Richard S, & Barnes, Robert D. (2004), Invertebrate zoology : a functional evolutionary approach (7th ed.), Belmont, CA: Thomson-Brooks/Cole, ISBN 978-0-03-025982-1, p. 788ff. – see particularly p. 804
  63. ^ Shimek, Ronald (January 2006). "Nano-Animals, Part I: Rotifers". Retrieved 27 July 2008.
  64. ^ Greenhill, Simon J. and Russell D. Gray. (2009.) "Austronesian Language and Phylogenies: Myths and Misconceptions About Bayesian Computational Methods," in Austronesian Historical Linguistics and Culture History: a Festschrift for Robert Blust, edited by Alexander Adelaar and Andrew Pawley. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, The Australian National University.


External links


Aquiloeurycea is a genus of salamanders in the family Plethodontidae. They are endemic to Mexico. The genus corresponds to the former "Pseudoeurycea cephalica species group", which was established in order to preserve Ixalotriton and Bolitoglossa while avoiding paraphyly of Pseudoeurycea.


Chirixalus is a now-synonymized genus in the moss frog family (Rhacophoridae). It used to include species from southern and eastern Asia. These species are now found mostly in Chiromantis, but also in Kurixalus, Liuixalus, Feihyla, Gracixalus, and Theloderma. The demise of Chirixalus and its absorption into Chiromantis resulted mostly from polyphyly of Chirixalus and paraphyly of Chiromantis.

Crane fly

Crane fly is a common name referring to any member of the insect family Tipulidae, of the order Diptera, true flies in the superfamily Tipuloidea. Cylindrotominae, Limoniinae, and Pediciinae have been ranked as subfamilies of Tipulidae by most authors, though occasionally elevated to family rank. In the most recent classifications, only Pediciidae is now ranked as a separate family, due to considerations of paraphyly. In colloquial speech, crane flies are sometimes known as mosquito hawks or daddy longlegs, a term also used to describe opiliones or the family Pholcidae, both of which are arachnids. The larvae of crane flies are known commonly as leatherjackets.Crane flies are found worldwide, though individual species usually have limited ranges. They are most diverse in the tropics, and are also common in northern latitudes and high elevations.The Tipulidae is one of the largest groups of flies, including over 15,000 species and subspecies in 525 genera and subgenera. Most crane flies were described by the entomologist Charles Paul Alexander, a fly specialist, in over 1000 research publications.

Evolutionary taxonomy

Evolutionary taxonomy, evolutionary systematics or Darwinian classification is a branch of biological classification that seeks to classify organisms using a combination of phylogenetic relationship (shared descent), progenitor-descendant relationship (serial descent), and degree of evolutionary change. This type of taxonomy may consider whole taxa rather than single species, so that groups of species can be inferred as giving rise to new groups. The concept found its most well-known form in the modern evolutionary synthesis of the early 1940s.

Evolutionary taxonomy differs from strict pre-Darwinian Linnaean taxonomy (producing orderly lists only), in that it builds evolutionary trees. While in phylogenetic nomenclature each taxon must consist of a single ancestral node and all its descendants, evolutionary taxonomy allows for groups to be excluded from their parent taxa (e.g. dinosaurs are not considered to include birds, but to have given rise to them), thus permitting paraphyletic taxa.

Flea beetle

The flea beetle is a small, jumping beetle of the leaf beetle family (Chrysomelidae), that makes up the tribe Alticini which is part of the subfamily Galerucinae. Historically the flea beetles were classified as their own subfamily.

Though most tribes of the Galerucinae are suspect of rampant paraphyly in the present delimitation, the Alticini seem to form a good clade.


Hydroidolina is a subclass of hydrozoans in the phylum Cnidaria. It contains the bulk of the paraphyletic "Hydroida" which were one of the main groupings of the class Hydrozoa in older classifications and were placed at order rank. Hydroidolina also includes, however, the highly advanced colonial jellies of Siphonophora, which were not included in the "Hydroida".


Lophotrochozoa (, "crest/wheel animals") is a clade of protostome animals within the Spiralia. The taxon was established as a monophyletic group based on molecular evidence.


In cladistics, a monophyletic group, or clade, is a group of organisms that consists of all the descendants of a common ancestor (or more precisely ancestral population). Monophyletic groups are typically characterised by shared derived characteristics (synapomorphies), which distinguish organisms in the clade from other organisms. The arrangement of the members of a monophyletic group is called a monophyly.

Monophyly is contrasted with paraphyly and polyphyly as shown in the second diagram. A paraphyletic group consists of all of the descendants of a common ancestor minus one or more monophyletic groups. A polyphyletic group is characterized by convergent features or habits of scientific interest (for example, night-active primates, fruit trees, aquatic insects). The features by which a polyphyletic group is differentiated from others are not inherited from a common ancestor.

These definitions have taken some time to be accepted. When the cladistics school of thought became mainstream in the 1960s, several alternative definitions were in use. Indeed, taxonomists sometimes used terms without defining them, leading to confusion in the early literature, a confusion which persists.The first diagram shows a phylogenetic tree with two monophyletic groups. The several groups and subgroups are particularly situated as branches of the tree to indicate ordered lineal relationships between all the organisms shown. Further, any group may (or may not) be considered a taxon by modern systematics, depending upon the selection of its members in relation to their common ancestor(s); see second and third diagrams.


Osteolepidida, also known as osteolepiformes, are a group of prehistoric lobe-finned fishes which appeared first time during the Devonian period. The order contains five families: Canowindridae, Megalichthyidae, Osteolepidae, Thysanolepidae and Tristichopteridae. The superorder is generally considered to be paraphyletic because the characters that define it are mainly attributes of stem tetrapodomorphs.Below is a cladogram showing the paraphyly of Osteolepiformes compiled and modified from Ahlberg and Johanson (1998). See also Swartz 2012. The Osteolepiformes are marked by the green bracket.


A polyphyletic group is a set of organisms, or other evolving elements, that have been grouped together but do not share an immediate common ancestor. The term is often applied to groups that share characteristics that appear to be similar but have not been inherited from common ancestors; these characteristics are known as homoplasies, and the development and phenomenon of homoplasies is known as convergent evolution. The arrangement of the members of a polyphyletic group is called a polyphyly.

Alternatively, polyphyletic is simply used to describe a group whose members come from multiple ancestral sources, regardless of similarity of characteristics. For example, the biological characteristic of warm-bloodedness evolved separately in the ancestors of mammals and the ancestors of birds. Other polyphyletic groups are for example algae, C4 photosynthetic plants, and edentates.Many biologists aim to avoid homoplasies in grouping taxa together and therefore it is frequently a goal to eliminate groups that are found to be polyphyletic. This is often the stimulus for major revisions of the classification schemes.

Researchers concerned more with ecology than with systematics may take polyphyletic groups as legitimate subject matter; the similarities in activity within the fungus group Alternaria, for example, can lead researchers to regard the group as a valid genus while acknowledging its polyphyly.. In recent research, the concepts of monophyly, paraphyly, and polyphyly have been used in deducing key genes for barcoding of diverse group of species.


Pompiloidea is a superfamily that includes spider wasps and velvet ants, among others. in the order Hymenoptera. There are at least 5 families and 290 described species in Pompiloidea.


Proteromonadidae is a paraphyletic family of heterokonts, that resemble Opalinidae.


Pseudoeurycea is a genus of salamander in the family Plethodontidae. The members of this genus are commonly known as the false brook salamanders. They are found in Mexico and Guatemala.In order to preserve Ixalotriton and Bolitoglossa while avoiding paraphyly of Pseudoeurycea, species in the former "Pseudoeurycea bellii species group" have been moved to the genus Isthmura, and those in the former "Pseudoeurycea cephalica species group" to Aquiloeurycea.


Sidalcea is a genus (approx. 25 species) of the botanical family Malvaceae. It contains several species of flowering plants known generally as checkerblooms or checkermallows, or prairie mallows in the United Kingdom. They can be annuals or perennials, some rhizomatous. They are native to West and Central North America.

In mid- to late summer the clumps of toothed basal leaves produce erect flowering stems, with 5-petalled mallow-type flowers in terminal racemes, in shades of pink, white and purple.Sidalcea is generally diploid (2n = 20), but polyploidy (4n, 6n) also occurs.Annuality appears to have evolved multiple times (4+) within this genus, although an ancestral annual state with annual paraphyly is also possible. Further, evolution rates within annual Sidalcea lineages appear to be faster than those of perennial lineages, at least when examining nuclear ribosomal DNA (internal and external transcribed spacer regions).Selected species:

(A = annual, P = perennial)

Sidalcea asprella (P)

Sidalcea calycosa – annual checkerbloom (A)

Sidalcea campestris – meadow checkermallow (P)

Sidalcea candida – white checkerbloom (P)

Sidalcea covillei – Owens Valley sidalcea (P)

Sidalcea cusickii – Cusick's checkermallow (P)

Sidalcea diploscypha – fringed checkerbloom (A)

Sidalcea glaucescens – waxy checkerbloom (P)

Sidalcea gigantea (P)

Sidalcea hartwegii – valley checkerbloom (A)

Sidalcea hendersonii – Henderson's checkermallow (P)

Sidalcea hickmanii – chaparral checkerbloom (P)

Sidalcea hirsuta – hairy checkerbloom (A)

Sidalcea hirtipes - hairy-stemmed checker-mallow (P)

Sidalcea keckii – Keck's checkerbloom (A)

Sidalcea malachroides – mapleleaf checkerbloom (P)

Sidalcea malviflora – dwarf checkerbloom

Sidalcea multifida (P)

Sidalcea nelsoniana – Nelson's checkermallow (threatened)

Sidalcea neomexicana – Salt Spring checkerbloom (P)

Sidalcea oregana – Oregon checkerbloom (miniature hollyhock)

Sidalcea oregana var. calva – Wenatchee Mountains checkermallow

Sidalcea pedata – birdfooted checkerbloom, Big Bear checkerbloom (P)

Sidalcea ranunculacea – marsh checkerbloom

Sidalcea reptans – Sierra checkerbloom

Sidalcea robusta – Butte County checkerbloom (P)

Sidalcea stipularis – Scadden Flat checkerbloom (P)

Sidalcea virgata (P)Garden cultivars are hybrids between S. candida and S. malviflora. The cultivars "Elsie Heugh" and "William Smith" have gained the Royal Horticultural Society's Award of Garden Merit.


The Syndiniales are an order of early branching dinoflagellates (also known as Marine Alveolates, "MALVs"), found as parasites of crustaceans, fish, algae, cnidarians, and protists (ciliates, radiolarians, other dinoflagellates). The trophic form is often multinucleate, and ultimately divides to form motile spores, which have two flagella in typical dinoflagellate arrangement. They lack a theca and chloroplasts, and unlike all other orders, the nucleus is never a dinokaryon. A well-studied example is Amoebophrya, which is a parasite of other dinoflagellates and may play a part in ending red tides. Several MALV groups have been assigned to Syndiniales; recent studies, however, show paraphyly of MALVs suggesting that only those groups that branch as sister to dinokaryotes ('core dinoflagellates') belong to Syndiniales.

Taxon in disguise

In bacteriology, a taxon in disguise is a species, genus or higher unit of biological classification whose evolutionary history reveals has evolved from another unit of similar or lower rank, making the parent unit paraphyletic. This happens when rapid evolution makes a new species appear radically different from the ancestral group, so that it is not (initially) recognised as belonging to the parent phylogenetic group, leaving the latter an evolutionary grade.

While the term is from bacteriology, parallel examples are found throughout the tree of life. E.g. four-footed animals have evolved from piscine ancestors, yet are not generally considered fish. The four footed animals can thus be said to be "fish in disguise". In many cases, the paraphyly can be resolved by re-classifying the taxon in question under the parent group, but in bacteriology renaming groups may have serious consequences as it may cause confusion over the identity of pathogens, and is generally avoided for some groups.


Thynnidae (also known as flower wasps) are a family of large solitary wasps whose larvae are almost universally parasitoids of various beetle larvae, especially those in the superfamily Scarabaeoidea. Until recently, the constituents of this family were classified in the family Tiphiidae, but multiple studies have independently confirmed that thynnids are a separate lineage.Most species are small, but they can be up to 30 mm long. The females of some subfamilies (all Diamminae, Methochinae, and Thynninae) are wingless, and hunt ground-dwelling (fossorial) beetle larvae, or (in one species) mole crickets. The prey is paralysed with the female's sting and an egg is laid on it so the wasp larva has a ready supply of food. In species where both sexes are winged, males are similar in size to the females, but are much more slender. The males of species with wingless females, however, are often much larger than the females and have wings, the adults mating in the air, with the female carried by the male's genitalia. Adults feed on nectar and are minor pollinators. As some of the ground-dwelling scarab species attacked by thynnids are pests, some of these wasps are considered beneficial as biological control agents.


Tiphioidea is a suggested superfamily of stinging wasps in the order Hymenoptera. There are two families in Tiphioidea, Tiphiidae and Sierolomorphidae.

Recent research in molecular phylogenetics has resulted in the reorganization of the infraorder Aculeata, which now contains eight superfamilies: Apoidea, Chrysidoidea, Formicoidea, Pompiloidea, Scolioidea, Tiphioidea, Thynnoidea, and Vespoidea.


Victorinini is a tribe of brush-footed butterflies. The four butterfly genera contained in this tribe are Anartia, Metamorpha, Napeocles, and Siproeta.

Those genera were previously included in the Kallimini tribe. In the early 2000s, molecular phylogenetics determined that Kallimini encountered a paraphyly with regard to the Melitaeini. There is also some indication that the genus Siproeta could be paraphyletic with regard to Napeocles.

Relevant fields
Basic concepts
Inference methods
Current topics
Group traits
Group types


This page is based on a Wikipedia article written by authors (here).
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.