Talk:Basal (phylogenetics): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:28, 16 April 2014

Evolutionary biology Stub‑class Mid‑importance

	Evolutionary biology portal This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, and evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biologyWikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyTemplate:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biology articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Article intro

States: A basal clade can be described as the earliest clade (of a given taxonomic rank[a]) to branch within a larger clade. Can anyone please clarify what, if anything, this means?
The Braz (talk) 12:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Examples

"it has had more time to evolve" - that phrase needs reworking. I don't have the time now, but it needed mentioning. I think this is a good start. I came here from the page on Mockingbirds. Your examples relating humans and plants may make perfect sense to a professional, but this layman's mind has to stretch way too far to place plants and humans on the same clade. Couldn't you choose a clade within vertebrates, or synapsids or something? Who's basal in human evolution? I am merely a bird loving artist who stumbled upon this article--but I feel it's an important bit of info that could be better explicated to the layman. And, as a luxury, perhaps having links to creatures that are considered basal would be illuminating.Francis Smith (talk) 01:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you said that rather nicely. Please, in the future, feel free to just edit out anything you see that is that bad and confusing for the general reader. --KP Botany (talk) 03:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The abuse of "basal"

Okay, so we've all done it (even I've done it), but this notion of a terminal taxon being "basal" in a tree is a common terminological abuse. The base of a tree is its root. None of the terminal species in a cladogram can be said to be basal, that's why they are terminal. The term "basal" simply means towards the root of the tree. Consider the cladogram used in the example:

Basal group

	Non-basal group

	Non-basal group

	Non-basal group

	Non-basal group

Suppose we simply collapse the "Non-basal" terminals and add an outgroup. We get:

Outgroup

	Basal group

	Non-basal group

Which side of the tree is basal now? Neither. That's because all nodes in a cladogram are rotatable. In both cases, the correct way to report the topology is that "Basal group" is the sister group of "Non-basal group". The reason is because we're not actually justified in calling it "basal" any more than we are justified in calling it "primitive". In fact, both terms implie exactly the same thing anyway—that the taxon in question is somehow exhibiting more ancestral features. This is certainly not the case. It simply happens to be a smaller clade and may or may not have a greater number of apomorphic states.

Please see: Krell, F.-T. and Cranston, P. (2004). "Which side of the tree is more basal?". Systematic Entomology 29 (3): 279–281. doi:10.1111/j.0307-6970.2004.00262.x. The Braz (talk) 12:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree, although I don't see "basal" ever going away. I've yet to see a situation where the meaning of a sentence including "basal" could not be expressed more precisely with "is the sister group to", "is the outgroup to", "is not a member of the clade X + Y", "has the plesiomorphic state of character Z", and so forth.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, these are all better and more precise alternatives to "basal". I also agree that the terminological abuse is unlikely to go away soon. Perhaps the article could be re-written to explain what "basal" actually means, and the present text used as an addendum to explain what people often mean by it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Braz (talk • contribs) 14:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)The Braz (talk) 15:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to edit.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a biologist, but it's my understanding that basal describes a relationship of three or more clades that together comprise another clade. In the case

A

B

	C

	D

we say that A is basal to C and D. Saying A is basal to B isn't really that useful, though I guess it means they are sister groups, along with an imprecise implication that B is composed of multiple groups itself. Bennetto (talk) 00:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Last example question

I'm confused about the meaning of the last example involving the family Hominidae and orangutans. Is this diagram illustrating a clade? If so, are orangutans the basal member? Brycehughes (talk) 04:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 ==Article intro==
- States: "A basal clade can be described as the earliest clade (of a given taxonomic rank[a]) to branch within a larger clade." Can anyone please clarify what, if anything, this means?
+ States: A basal clade can be described as the earliest clade (of a given taxonomic rank[a]) to branch within a larger clade. Can anyone please clarify what, if anything, this means?
  [[User:The Braz|The Braz]] ([[User talk:The Braz|talk]]) 12:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)