Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Systematics and Evolution-2011
Systematics and Evolution-2011
Langkah Sembiring
Laboratorium Mikrobiologi, Fakultas Biologi
Universitas Gadjah Mada
Jl. Teknika Selatan, Kampus Bulaksumur, Yogyakarta, 55281, Indonesia
e-mail: lsembiring@yahoo.com
Abstract
Study of diversity and their relationship has been very basic discipline in biology
since it is a pioneering field in effort to further understand the realm of biology. Such
study is called systematics which its main endeavour is to understand the magnitude of
diversity of living being by employing its subdisciplines of classification, nomenclature,
and identification. The pioneering nature of the systematics means that, the achievement
of its study will pave the way for further study by other subdisciplines in biology suchs as
genetics, physiology, ecology, and biochemistry of organisms. The object of systematics
is organisms diversity while organisms diversity is in turn also viewed as a product of
evolution, and consequently, the study of diversity must be significantly influenced by
development of evolutionary theory. Classification for instance has been influenced by
evolutionary concept since its birth as science within the realm of biology. This paper will
described and discuss the essence of systematics as well as its paramount important
roles in undertanding the magnitude of biodiversity as a product od evolutionary process.
Subdisciplines of systematics is described and discussed by objective exemplification.
Biological classification is discussed critically and the school of thoughts in classification
(phenetics, cladistics, and evolutionary taxonomy) is described and analysed within the
perspective of evolutionary theory. The essence and use of nomenclature and
identification within the study of systematics will also be discussed accordingly. Finally,
the impact of science and technology development as well as the use of evolutionary
theory in systematics will be exemplified throughout the history of living things
classification..
A. Introduction
Systematics has been defined in several different ways despite all of definitions still
clearly refer to almost similar meaning, namely pertaining to the study of biodiversity and
their relationships. For instance, just to quote several examples, in terms of simple and
general meaning, systematics is defined to be the study of the diversity and
relationship among organisms (Priest & Austin, 1995), the study of the diversity of
organisms and their relationships (Madigan et al., 2012), the scientific study of the
kinds and diversity of organisms and of any and all relationship among them
(Goodfellow & ODonnell, 1993), the scientific study the organisms with the ultimate
object of characterizing and arranging them in an orderly manner (Willey et al., 2009).
However, according to Merriam Websters Collegiate Dictionary10th edition (Anonym,
1993)
prevail theory of evolutionary biology. At the end, as stated by Stearns and Hoekstra
(2000) the goal of systematics is to discover the structure of the evolutionary
relationships among organisms that result from their having common ancestor.
Therefore, evolutionary biology theory could be seen as a paramount important back
ground of any systematic study of biodiversity and even is viewed as unifying concept in
realm of biology.
This paper will describe and discuss the important role of systematics in the study of
biodiversity and how evolutionary theory has shaped view on how to classify organisms
demonstrated by the history of organismal classification system development from the
priod of Aristoteles to the nowdays era of molecular biology.
B. Classification
Classification is one of subdisciplines used by Systematics in order to study diversity
of organisms. According to Myer and Ashlock (1991) the traditional definition of
classification is the grouping of objects into classis owing to their shared possession of
attributes. However, some experts, have interchangebly use classification
and
Therefore,
organisms into groups (taxa) on the basis of their relationsips in order to produce orderly
arrangement or system of classification designed to express interrelationships of
organisms and to serve as an information storage and retrieval system (Goodfellow &
ODonnell, 1993). Therefore, classificataion or practical aspect of taxonomy will certainly
generate a classification system of organisms. However, the product of classification will
much depend on the set purpose of classification as well as.prevail background theory in
use
Based on the purpose of classification, it could be grouped into (i) artificial
classication and (ii) natural classification. The example of artificial classification could
be found in a more applicative aspect of biology such as agriculture, medicine, or
industry. For instance, plants could be classified into edible and unedible plants, or
pathogenic and non-pathogenic microorganisms, as well as industrially important and
industrially un-important plants. Natural classification is based on many characters and
*)Presented in International Conference on Biological Science (ICBS) Fakultas Biologi Universitas
Gadjah Mada Yogyakarta, Indonesia 23-24 September 2011
therefore showing overall resemblance (Goofellow & ODonnell, 1993), and this
classification could be further devided into (i) phenetic and (ii) phylogenetic classication.
On the basis of number of characters used, classification can also be devided into
(i) monothetic classification, and (ii) polythetic classification. Monothetic classification is
based on unique set of features considered to be both sufficient and necessary for the
group so defined and in practice, the overreliance placed on small numbers of
subjectively chosen morphological and physiological properties led to serious
missclassification (Goodfellow & ODonnell, 1993). Therefore, the clasification system
resulted from such method will be very subjective and hence has
limited use in
The publication of The Origin of Species (Darwin, 1859) did not directly followed by
the practice of classification with a specific method in order to determine common
descent. Only after Simpson (1945) cit. Myer and Ashlock (1993) developed a wellthought-out statements of the principles of traditional evolutionary taxonomy and he
followed this up in 1961 with a comprehensive treatment that the concept of Darwinian
evolutionary theory was really put into practice of classification. From there on,
classification has much been further supported by molecular biology by using DNA
sequence analysis
descent because in practice, both of the two criteria of relationships are frequently in
conflict (Myer & Ashlock (1993). Furthermore, with regard to evolutionary theory,
three
schools of thought of classification had been developed based on the priority given to
each of the criteria, namely (i) Phenetics, which gives primacy to similarity (ii)
Cladistics,
Evolutionary taxonomy, which consider the two sets of criteria equally but sequentially,
that is taxa privisionally delimited by similarity and subsequently tested by monophyly
(Myer & Ashlock (1993). The healthy debate among those three different school of
thoughts in classification is continuing although there has also been moves to adopt a
polyphasic approach since it was declared by Rita Colwell (1970).
In microbiology, the polyphasic systematic approach has been practiced so far by
combining the independent approach of numerical-phenetic, chemosystematics, as well
as molecular systematics in order to achieve sounding classification. Congruence
among the three independent approaches is viewed as a good basis to generate the
rigorous and robust classification system as an excellent basis for devising a useful
identification schemes.
C. Nomenclature
This is another subdiscipline of systematics which also responsible to support the
study of diversity and relationship of organisms. As Goodfellow and ODonnell (1993)
stated that Nomenclature deals with the terms use to denote taxonomic categories,
e.g. species, genus, and family, the relaive rank of such catagories, and the process of
allocating correct, internationally recognized names to organisms . The scientific names
of organisms are regulated internationally. Bacterial and Archeal scientific names are
regulated by the International Code of Bacterial Nomenclature (Sneath, 1992), Plants
and Fungal nomenclature are regulated by the International Code of Botanical
Nomenclature (Greuter et al., 1994), and Animal and Protozoa nomenclature are
regulated by the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (Ride et al., 1985).There
is also effort made to unify the three nomenclatual codes as Goddfellow (2000) stated
that there are moves to produce a Universal code of Nomenclature although it seems
that there is still time to wait for unification of the Code.
The importance of universal code of nomenclature is undiniable due to its use for
internationall communication purpose. Therefore, it has been agreed by each code that
the scientific names for organisms are given in Latin or latinized words and written in
binomial fashion such as Bacillus anthracis. The first representing the genus name, e.g.
Mangifera, and the second consisting the species identity (specific epithet), e.g. indica.
In this example, the binomial name is Mangifera indica. The choice of Latin words as
MacDoo (1993) stated provides very great importance for two reasons (i) the use of
Latin facilitated international uniformity in nomenclature without offence to any ones
national pride (ii) it guaranteed continuing precision of application unaffected by popular
inaccuracy, since no countrys population use latin as the language of every day
discourse.
The universal aspect of scientific names clearly benefits all scientists who intend to
communicate any orgnisms name across the world and prevent misscommunication
among parties. International communication among parties would have been impossible
if such regulation had not been carried out. Instead of using banana (English) equivalent
to pisang (Indonsian) the scientific name of Musa paradisiaca could be used to facilitate
universal communication. The same case will also follows for naming a grass carp fish
*)Presented in International Conference on Biological Science (ICBS) Fakultas Biologi Universitas
Gadjah Mada Yogyakarta, Indonesia 23-24 September 2011
(English) equivalent to ikan mas (Indonesian) and this could be solved by using scientific
name of Cyprinus carpio.
However, as Goodfellow (2000) stated that it is important to recognize that the
nomenclature of a group of organisms does not depend on the correct latinization of
words, but on the the thoroughness of the preceding taxonomic work becouse when
(micro)organisms have been rigorously characterised and classified it is relatively simple
matter to apply the rules of nomenclature. Once the name for a taxon has been chosen,
the next step is to publish it. The paper submitted for publication should give the
derivation of the new name and the name itself should carry the relevant indiction of
novelty (e.g. sp. nov., gen nov. For example, there were six novel
species of
DSM 41760T Sembiring et al., 2000, and S. yogyakartensis sp. nov. DSM 41766T
Sembiring et al., 2000. The application International nomenclature could in fact be
achieved once a thorough characterization has been carried out properly to generate a
reasonable basis for proposing of the new species names through international
publication.
D. Identification
The last sub-discipline used by systematics to study diversity and relationships of
organisms is identification. Goodfellow and Priest (2000) provide that identification
covers both the act and result of determining whether an unknown organism belongs to
a particular group in a previously made classification. It involves determining the key
characters of the unknown organism and mathing of these against databases containing
information on validly described taxa. Therefore, it is crucially to understand that
organism could only be identified if classification has been a preceeding step and the
resultant taxa given names or codes, but if the organism respresent an undescribed
taxon, then it cannot be identified (Priest & Austin, 1995).
In terms of plant or animal specimens, the identification can be carried out by
matching the key characters of the specimens against databases containing information
in form of identification keys. However, for microbial strains identification must be
*)Presented in International Conference on Biological Science (ICBS) Fakultas Biologi Universitas
Gadjah Mada Yogyakarta, Indonesia 23-24 September 2011
performed by matching the key characters of the strain in question with key characters of
live reference strain obtained from culture collection or from somewhere else.
Thus, identification is the product of systematics which is mostly useful for anyone
who intend to guarantee the identity of organism s(he) work with. Irresspectively of
his/her scientific background, s(he) needs to achieve the definite identity of organism in
question let alone if it is being communicated scientifically. Therefore, the basic
understanding of identification strategy is required for any biologist to be able to solve
his/her own problem of identification. Although, they may sometime be helped by
institutional identification services such as, Herbarium for plant speciemens, Zoological
Museum for animal specimens, and Culture Collection for microbial strains.
Based on the description above, classification and identification is much more
dependent on database and therefore they are continuously developed along with the
application of new taxonomic concept and methods (Goodfellow & Priest, 2000). It
means that the identification scheme will always be based on the preceeding resulted
classification system. It also follows that the robustness of any identification scheme
entirely dependent on classification system to which its development has been based.
E. Chronological development of Living Things Classification
Classification system developed by Linaeus (1753) grouped all organism only into
two Kingdoms, namely Kingdom Plantae (Plants, Algae, Fungi, Bacteria, and of course
including Archaea) and Kindom Animalia (Animal dan Protozoa). Subsequently, the
development of reseach instruments, especially microscope, a microorganism (Euglena)
was found. This organism was not fit to be classified into either Kingdoms, and therefore
Haeckel (1866) proposed the three-kingdom system, those were
Kingdom Plantae,
Kingdom Animalia, and Kingdom Protista. The last kingdom was created to
accommodate organisms which were not fit for another two kingdoms.
Furthermore, as a result of electron microscope development, it was known that in
fact internal structure of cell showed that cells of plants, animal, algae, fungi, and
protozoa possess membrane-bound organell but bacteria and archaea were found to be
lacking of it. Therefore, Chatton (1937) termed the first group of cells to be eukaryotic,
and the second group of cell to be prokaryotic. Subsequently, such dichotomous
classification system was accepted and used by most of biologists, and eventually
dogmatically treated as fundamentally and evolutionarily correct. Let alone that electron
microscopical and biochemical studies also strongly supported the existense of
*)Presented in International Conference on Biological Science (ICBS) Fakultas Biologi Universitas
Gadjah Mada Yogyakarta, Indonesia 23-24 September 2011
eukaryotic and prokaryotic cells, and therefore inspired the experts to devise a new
classification system based on those state of the art.
One of new classification system devised on the basis of the dichotomous
paradigm of prokaryotic-eukaryotic was poposed by R.H. Whittaker (1969) who
groupped organisms into five Kingdoms of life. In this system of classification, Fungi
(including mushroom, molds, and yeasts) were excluded from Kingdom Plantae to be
independet Kingdom as Kingdom Fungi. The exclusion of Fungi from Kingdom Plantae
was based on the facts that fungi are non photosynthetic, heterotrophic,
cell wall
Korarcheota,
and
Nanoarcheota.
And
based
on
phylogenetic
evolutionary taxonomy, which consider the two sets of criteria equally but sequentially,
that is taxa privisionally delimited by similarity and subsequently tested by monophyly.
The debate among the three schools has been continuing in order to sort out better
approach in classification. The impact of evolutionary theory on systematics is very
significant since the study of diversity is strongly influenced by the development of
concept and method of data analysis. Along the history of living things classification it
has been clearly demonstrated the impact of science and technology development as
well as development of concept and method of data analysis including molecular
evolutionary concept and molecular data anlytical methods.
References
Anonym. 1993. Merriam Websers Collegiate Disctionary, 10th Edition, Merriam Webster
Incorporated, Massachusset, USA.
Atlas, R.M. 1997. Principles of Microbiology 2nd Edition, Wm. C. Brown Publishers, USA.
Bult, C.J. et al. 1996. Complete Genome Sequence of the Methanogenic Archeon,
Methanococcus janashii. Science 273(5278): 1058-1073
Campbell, N.A., Reece, J.B., Urry, L.A., Cain, M. L., Wasserman, S.A., Minorsky, P.V., &
Jackson, R.B. 2008. Biology, 8th Edition, Pearson Benjamin Cummings, USA.
Chatton, E. 1937. Titres et travaux scientifiques (1906 1937) de Edouard Chatton.
Sette, Italy, E. sottano.
Colwell, R.R. 1970. Polyphasic Taxonomy of Bacteria In Culture Collection of
Microorganisms (H. Iizuka & T. Hasegawa, Eds.) University of Tokyo Press,
Japan.
Cowan, S.T. 1978. A Dictionary of Microbial Taxonomy. Cambridge University Press, UK.
Darwin, C. 1859. The Origin of Species by Means od Natural Selection or The
Preservation of Favoured Races in Struggle for Life. Pinguin Books. UK.
Goodfellow, M. 2000. Microbial Systematics: Background ans Uses In Applied Microbial
Systematics (F.G. Priest & M. Goodfelloe, Eds.) Kluwer Academic Publishers,
Netherland.
Goodfellow, m. & ODonnell, A.G. Roots of Bacterial Systematics In Handbook of New
Bacterial Systematics (M. Goodfellow & A.G. ODonnell, Eds.) Academic Press,
UK.
Greuter, W., Barry, F.R., Burdet, H.M.,Caloner, W.G., Demaulin, V., Hawksworth, D.L.,
Jfragensen, P.M., Nicholson, D.H., Silva, D.C., Trehane, P. & McNail, J. 1994.
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, Renum Vegetable.
*)Presented in International Conference on Biological Science (ICBS) Fakultas Biologi Universitas
Gadjah Mada Yogyakarta, Indonesia 23-24 September 2011
Haeckel, E. 1866. Generelle Morphologie der Organismen, II. Berlin : Georg Reiner.
Hillis, D.M., Moritz, C., & Mable, B.K. (Eds.) 1996. Molecular Systematics. 2nd Edition,
Sinauer Associates Inc., Publishers, Sunderland, Massachusset, USA.
Hoefnagels, M. 2009. Biology: Concepts and Investigation. McGraw-Hill, USA.
Lawrence, E. (Ed.). 1997. Hendersons Dictionary of Biological Terms, 11th Edition,
Longm,an, UK.
Madigan, M.T., Martinko, J.M., Stahl, D.A., & Clark, D.P. 2012. Brock Biology of
Microorganisms, 12th Edition, Pearson, USA.
Minneli, A. 1993. Biological Systematics: The state of the arts. Chapman & Hall, UK.
Mcadoo, T.O. Nomenclatural Literacy In Handbook of New Bacterial Systematics (M.
Goodfellow & A.G. ODonnell, Eds.) Academic Press, UK.
Myer, E. & Ashlock, P.D. 1991. Principles of Systematic Zoology, 2nd Edition, McGrawHill, Inc, USA.
Priest, F. & Austin, B. 1995. Modern Bacterial Taxonomy, 2nd Edition. Chapman & Hall,
UK.
Ride, W.D.L., Sabrosky, C.W., Bernardi, G. & Melville, R.V. (Eds). 1985. International
Code of Zoological Nomenclature, University of California Press, USA.
Sembiring, L., Ward, A.C. & Goodfellow, M. 2000.
Selective isolation and
characterization of members of the Streptomyces violaceusniger clade
associated with the roots of Paraserianthes falcataria. Antonievanleeuwenhoek
78: 353 366.
Sneath, P.H.A. (ed.), 1992. International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria. 1990
Revision, American Society for Microbiology, Washington, D.C., USA.
Solomon, E.P., Berg, L.R. & Martin, D.W. 2008. Biology, 8th Edition, Thompson
Brooks/Cole, USA.
Stearns, S.C. & Hoekstra, R.F. 2000. Evolution: An Introduction. Oxford University Press,
UK.
Tortora, G.J. Funke, B.R. & Case, C.L. 2007. Microbiology: An Introduction. 9th edition.
Pearson Benjamin Cummings, USA.
Watson, J.D. & Crick, F.H.C. Molecular Structure of the Nucleic Acids: A structure for
Deoxyribose Nucleic Acids. Nature 171: 737-738.
Whittaker, R.H. 1969. New Concepts of Kingdoms of Organisms. Science 163:150-160.
Wiley, J.M., Sherwood, L.M. & Woolverton, C.J. 2009. Prescotts Principles of
Microbiology, International Edition, McGraw-Hill, USA.
Woese, C.R. 1987. Bacterial evolution. Microbiological Reviews 51: 221 271.
Woese, C.R., Kandler, O. & Wheelis, M.L. 1990. Towards a natural system of organisms:
Proposal for domains Archaea, Bacteria and Eukarya. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences. USA 87: 4576-4579.