From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Removed Wiktionary tag. Apomorphies are very important concept in cladistics. Phlebas 16:28, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Compleat Cladist[edit]

The page is currently flagged as needing additional sources.

The workbook "The Complete Cladist" (Compleate is spelled "eate" - its an old English word) defines synapomorhies as "shared derived characters" (page 2). It notes that Aves, Crocodylia, and Squamata are all considered to be relatives because they share synapomorphic characters "thought to have originated in their common ancestor" (page 2).

The citation for the workbook is

Wiley, EO, D Siegel-Causey, DR Brooks, and VA Funk. 1991. The Compleat Cladist: A Primer of Phylogenetic Procedures. University of Kansas Museum of Natural History Special Publication 19.

Can be read online at

or downloaded at

this is a vary large, scanned PDF file

Brouwern (talk) 00:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


"Apomorphy" currently redirects to this page, which seems less than helpful given that this page never defines "apomorphy" and in fact uses the word in a definition as if the reader should be expected to know what it means (the second sentence of this article reads in part that "A synapomorphy is thus an apomorphy visible in multiple taxa" ("apomorphy" in the sentence is a wikilink, but since, again, it simply redirects back to this page, it's not a particularly useful one)). This means that anyone trying to look up "apomorphy" in Wikipedia is out of luck. I see from the page history of "apomorphy" that it used to redirect to cladistics, where "apomorphy" was defined, but was changed two years ago. I'm not sure why the change; it seems that it makes more sense to redirect "apomorphy" to a page where the concept is defined and discussed, rather than one in which it's simply mentioned in passing. I propose that either "apomorphy" be made to redirect back to "cladistics" again, or that "apomorphy" be discussed and defined in this article, rather than just mentioned in passing as it is now. I haven't made the change myself only because I'm not knowledgeable about the subject and don't know that there might have been a good reason for making the change in the redirect, and thus don't know which course of action would be preferable. (I infer that perhaps most apomorphies of interest are in fact synapomorphies, and thus the broader use of the word "apomorphy" is relatively rare? If so, that should be made clear in the article.) --Smeazel (talk) 20:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello smeazel. I will refrain from calling you my usual "buddy" or some such thing, as some people do not seem to like it. It seems to me you've gone out of your way to come to my attention. You've been on since 2007, at least this time, and you know enough to hide your IP address under a user name. You're not telling us anything about yourself. I'm not a sysadmin so I can't track you. Five years is a long time, yet there is almost no history on your discussion page. You pick out an obscure point in an article you claim to know nothing about and send me a message. However, there seems to be no record of me ever working on that article. Yet, you cite a figure of two years. I would say you are trying to come to my attention. All right, you have my attention. What do you want? For the point you mention, well, I have no memory of working on that article, senator (joke). It is of course wrongly linked, as you say. One does not link to the same article and I believe there is or was an error message associated with it. You put yourself forward as needing my blessing on changing it. That isn't necessary as it is a manifest error. Again, after 5 years I might have assumed you'd know that, but maybe not. So, I'm changing it. You can too! (to get poetic). Anything else? You want to converse? WP is against conversation but you could probably slip a few things through. Just don't use it to denounce tyranny, as I have in the past. By the way I got no plans to get back on the cladistics articles. The specialized vocabulary didn't "take" among linguists. I see "shared common innovation" a lot, I never see synapomorphy. I do not think the linguists are going to follow the geneticists into the twists and turns of essentially mathematical language. I know I wouldn't, but then I'm a technical writer trying to be user-friendly. You find me more on the language side. Ciao (oops! Does that offend you?)Dave (talk) 01:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Smeazel was quite right that the article is confusing. I've done a little bit of work on it, but it needs more. The relationship between "derived character", "apomorphy" and "synapomorphy" needs careful explanation. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:42, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Synapomorphy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)