Principles of Classification

Think about an elephant. Develop a mental image of it. How would you describe
it to someone who has never seen one? Take a moment to consider carefully . . .

Click the button to see if

your mental image was accurate.

Very likely your mental image was a visual one like the picture. Humans primarily
emphasize traits that can be seen with their eyes since they mostly rely on their
sense of vision. However, there is no reason that an elephant or any other
organism could not be described in terms of touch, smell, and/or sound as well.
Think about an elephant again but this time in terms of non-visual traits . . .

Not surprisingly, biologists also classify organisms into different categories mostly
by judging degrees of apparent similarity and difference that they can see. The
assumption is that the greater the degree of physical similarity, the closer the
biological relationship.

On discovering an unknown organism, researchers begin their classification by

looking for anatomical features that appear to have the same function as those
found on other species. The next step is determining whether or not the
similarities are due to an independent evolutionary development or to descent
from a common ancestor. If the latter is the case, then the two species are
probably closely related and should be classified into the same or near biological
categories.

Homologies are anatomical features, of

different organisms, that have a similar
appearance or function because they were Human arm bones
inherited from a common ancestor that also
had them. For instance, the forelimb of a (common bird,
bear, the wing of a bird, and your arm have mammal, and
reptile forelimb
the same functional types of bones as did configuration)
our shared reptilian ancestor. Therefore,
these bones are homologous structures.
The more homologies two organisms
possess, the more likely it is that they have a close genetic relationship.
There can also be nonhomologous structural similarities between species. In
these cases, the common ancestor did not have the same anatomical structures
as its descendants. Instead, the similarities are due to independent development
in the now separate evolutionary lines. Such misleading similarities are called
homoplasies . Homoplastic structures can be the result of parallelism,
convergence, or mere chance.

Parallelism , or parallel evolution, is a similar evolutionary development in

different species lines after divergence from a common ancestor that did not have
the characteristic but did have an initial anatomical feature that led to it. For
instance, some South American and African monkeys evolved relatively large
body sizes independently of each other. Their common ancestor was a much
smaller monkey but was otherwise reminiscent of the later descendant species.
Apparently, nature selected for larger monkey bodies on both continents during
the last 30 million years.

Convergence , or convergent evolution, is the development of a similar

anatomical feature in distinct species lines after divergence from a common
ancestor that did not have the initial trait that led to it. The common ancestor is
usually more distant in time than is the case with parallelism. The similar
appearance and predatory behavior of North American wolves and Tasmanian
wolves (thylacines) is an example. The former is a placental mammal like
humans and the latter is an Australian marsupial like kangaroos. Their common
ancestor lived during the age of the dinosaurs 125 million years ago and was very
different from these descendants today. There are, in fact, a number of other
Australian marsupials that are striking examples of convergent evolution with
placental mammals elsewhere.

Australian Tasmanian wolf or tiger

North American wolf
(now extinct)

Last Tasmanian Tiger, Thylacine, 1933 (silent film): To return here, you must click
the "back" button on your browser program. (length = 43 secs)

Examples of Convergent Evolution--ant eating mammals from four continents

This link takes you to an external website. To return here, you must click the "back"
 button on your browser program.

Both parallelism and convergence are thought to be due primarily to separate

species lines experiencing the same kinds of natural selection pressures over
long periods of time.

Analogies are anatomical features that have the same form or function in
different species that have no known common ancestor. For instance, the wings
of a bird and a butterfly are analogous structures because they are superficially
similar in shape and function. Both of these very distinct species lines solved the
problem of getting off of the ground in essentially the same way. However, their
wings are quite different on the inside. Bird wings have an internal framework
consisting of bones, while butterfly wings do not have any bones at all and are
kept rigid mostly through fluid pressure. Analogies may be due to homologies or
homoplasies, but the common ancestor, if any, is unknown.

Problems in Classifying Organisms

Listing characteristics that distinguish one species from another has the effect of
making it appear that the species and their distinctive attributes are fixed and
eternal. We must always keep in mind that they were brought about by
evolutionary processes that operated not merely at some time in the distant past,
but which continue to operate in the present and can be expected to give rise to
new forms in the future. Species are always changing. As a consequence, they
are essentially only a somewhat arbitrarily defined point along an evolutionary
line.

It is also important to realize that most species are

physically and genetically diverse. Many are far more
varied than humans. When you think of an animal, such
as the jaguar shown on the right, and describe it in terms
of its specific traits (fur color patterns, body shape, etc.),
:
 it is natural to generalize and to think of all jaguars that
way. To do so, however, is to ignore the reality of
diversity in nature.

Another problem in classifying a newly discovered

organism is in determining the specific characteristics
that actually distinguish it from all other types of Jaguar
organisms. There is always a lively debate among researchers over defining new
species because it is not obvious what are the most important traits. There are
two schools of thought in resolving this dilemma. The first defines new species
based on minor differences between organisms. This is the splitter approach.
The second tends to ignore minor differences and to emphasize major
similarities. This lumper approach results in fewer species being defined.
Ideally, this dispute could be settled by breeding experiments--if two organisms
can mate and produce fertile offspring, they are probably members of the same
species. However, we must be careful because members of very closely related
species can sometimes produce offspring together, and a small fraction of those
may be fertile. This is the case with mules, which are the product of mating
between female horses and male donkeys. About one out of 10,000 mules is
fertile. Does this mean that horses and donkeys are in the same species?
Whatever the answer may be, it is clear that species are not absolutely distinct
entities, though by naming them, we implicitly convey the idea that they are.

Tigons and Ligers--what happens when tigers and lions mate

This link takes you to an external website. To return here, you must
click the "back" button on your browser program.

Breeding experiments are rarely undertaken to determine species boundaries

because of the practical difficulties. It is time consuming and wild animals do not
always cooperate. Using this kind of reproductive data for defining species from
the fossil record is impossible since we cannot go back in time to observe
interspecies breeding patterns and results. Likewise, we cannot carry out a
breeding experiment between ourselves and our ancestors from a million years
ago. Comparisons of DNA sequences are now becoming more commonly used
as an aid in distinguishing species. If two animals share a great many DNA
sequences, it is likely that they are at least closely related. Unfortunately, this
usually does not conclusively tell us that they are members of the same species.
Therefore, we are still left with morphological characteristics as the most
commonly used criteria for identifying species differences.

The Linnaean scheme for classification of living things lumps organisms together
based on presumed homologies. The assumption is that the more homologies
:
 two organisms share, the closer they must be in terms of evolutionary distance.
Higher, more inclusive divisions of the Linnaean system (e.g., phylum and class)
are created by including together closely related clusters of the immediately lower
divisions. The result is a hierarchical system of classification with the
highest category consisting of all living things. The lowest category consists of a
single species. Each of the categories above species can have numerous
subcategories. In the example below, only two genera (plural of genus) are listed
per family but there could be many more or only one.

order
family family
genus genus genus genus
species species species species species species species species

Most researchers today take a cladistics approach to classification. This

involves making a distinction between derived and primitive traits when
evaluating the importance of homologies in determining placement of organisms
within the Linnaean classification system. Derived traits are those that have
changed from the ancestral form and/or function. An example is the foot of a
modern horse. Its distant early mammal ancestor had five digits. Most of the
bones of these digits have been fused together in horses giving them essentially
only one toe with a hoof. In contrast, primates have retained the primitive
characteristic of having five digits on the ends of their hands and feet. Animals
sharing a great many homologies that were recently derived, rather than only
ancestral, are more likely to have a recent common ancestor. This assumption is
the basis of cladistics.

Previous Topic Return to Menu Practice Quiz Next Topic

Copyright � 1998-2012 by Dennis O'Neil. All rights reserved.

illustration credits
: