Western Mindanao State University

College of Science and Math

Department of Biological Science
Zamboanga City

Name: Dela Peña, James C. Date Performed: April 15, 2021

Course/Year: BS BIOLOGY 1A Date Submitted: April 16, 2021

BIO110 laboratory
Activity #6
Phenetics (Numerical Taxonomy)

INTRODUCTION
In phenetics, all characters are more or less equal. Relationships are inferred by the
degree of general similarity, which is generally determined with an algorithm. Today, it is
common for molecular data to be analyzed phonetically. A branching diagram called a
phenogram is often used to depict the phenetic relationships, in which the lengths of the branches
denote the distance between taxa. Hypotheses of relationship are often generated by a
preponderance of similarity among taxa are estimated from the characters via the specific
algorithm. Different algorithms can give different results for the same data. Phenetics can be
done using morphological, behavioral, or molecular data on living or fossil taxa. Phenetics is
also called Numerical Taxonomy. While this method may seem more “objective’, in fact the
results are strongly biased by primitive characters, and while the clusters so produced may be
stable , they generally tell little about the evolutionary relationships unless the data are
significant part of the organism’s genome.

Caminalcules (from Camin and animalcule) are group of animal-like forms invented by
Professor Joseph H. Camin (Univerity of Kansas) as a tool for understanding phylogenetics.
Interested in how taxonomists group species, he designed these creatures to show an
evolutionary pattern of divergence and diversification in morphology. There are 29 species of
Caminalcules and 48 fossil forms.
OBJECTIVES
1. Determine the degree of similarity between all possible pairs of selected Caminalcules
using a character matrix.
2. Determine similarity rankings of the selected Canimalcules.
3. Construct a phenogram of the Caminalcules.
4. Construct a phenogram using the 10 specimens you have used in activity 5.

MATERIALS
 20 invertebrates used in activity 3
 References
 Calculator
 Ruler
 Pencil
 PROCEDURE

CONSTRUCT A CHARACTER MATRIX

COMPUTE THE OVERALL SIMILARITY

BETWEEN ALL PAIR-WISE
COMBINATIONS OF THE 8 OUT’S, USING
A SCALE OF (MAXIMUM SIMILARITY)

FIND THE PAIR OF OUT’S THAT HAVE

THE HIGHEST SIMILARITY RANKING.
CONSTRUCT A NEW CHARACTER
MATRIX

CONTINUE TO CONSTRUCT REDUCED

MATRICES, EACH TIME RECALCULATING
THE SIMILARITY INDICES BETWEEN YOUR
NEW COMPOSITE OTU WITH ALL THE
REMAINING OTU’S

CONSTRUCT A PHENOGRAM USING

THE 10 SPECIMENS

RESULTS AND DISCUSION

CHARACTERS OTU
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 toad
sponge ascaris earth shell crab dragonfly cockroach bee sea
worm urchin
CHARCTER STATES
1. Body Skeleton + + + + + + + + + -
(exoskeleton/e
ndoskeleton)
2. Presence of - - - - - + + + - -
wings
(present/absen
t)
3. Presence of - - - - - + + - - -
mandibles
(present/absen
t)
4. Antennae - - - - - + + + - -
(present/absen
t)
5. Jointed legs - - - - + + + + - +
(present/absen
t)
6. Presence of - - - + - - - - - -
shell
(present/absen
t)
7. Presence of + - - - - - - - - -
body pores
(present/absen
t)
8. Bilaterally - + + - + + + + - +
symmetrical
(present/absen
t)
9. Body - - + - + + + + - -
segmentation(
present/absent
)
TABLE 1. character matrix of the 10 Operational taxonomic units (OUT’s)
Legend: + = present; - = absent or none

TABLE 2. A hypothetical similarity rankings.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 -
2 0.70 -
3 0.60 0.80 -
4 0.70 0.70 0.60 -
5 0.50 0.70 0.80 0.50 -
6 0.20 0.40 0.50 0.20 0.60 -
7 0.20 0.40 0.50 0.20 0.60 0.90* -
8 0.30 0.50 0.60 0.20 0.70 0.80 0.80 -
9 0.80 0.80 0.70 0.80 0.60 0.30 0.30 0.40 -
10 0.50 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.70 0.40 0.30 0.40 0.60 -

Computation:
 a. 1 vs 2: 7/10= 0.70
b. 1 vs 3: 6/10= 0.60
c. 1 vs 4: 7/10= 0.70
d. 1 vs 5: 5/10 = 0.50
e. 1 vs 6: 2/10= 0.20
f. 1 vs 7: 2/10= 0.20
g. 1 vs 8: 3/10= 0.30
h. 1 vs 9: 8/10= 0.80
i. 1 vs 10: 5/10= 0.50
j. 2 vs 3: 8/10= 0.80
k. 2 vs 4: 7/10= 0.70
l. 2 vs 5: 7/10= 0.70
m. 2 vs 6: 4/10=0.40
n. 2 vs 7: 4/10= 0.40
o. 2 vs 8: 5/10= 0.50
p. 2 vs 9: 8/10= 0.80
q. 2 vs 10: 7/10= 0.70
r. 3 vs 4: 6/10= 0.60
s. 3 vs 5:8/10= 0.80
t. 3 vs 6: 5/10= 0.50
u. 3 vs 7: 5/10= 0.50
v. 3 vs 8: 6/10= 0.60
w. 3 vs 9: 7/10= 0.70
x. 3 vs 10: 6/10= 0.60
y. 4 vs 5: 5/10= 0.50
z. 4 vs 6: 2/10= 0.20
aa. 4 vs 7: 2/10= 0.20
bb. 4 vs 8: 2/10= 0.20
cc. 4 vs 9: 8/10= 0.80
dd. 4 vs 10: 5/10= 0.50
ee. 5 vs 6: 6/10= 0.60
ff. 5 vs 7: 6/10= 0.60
gg. 5 vs 8:7/10= 0.70
hh. 5 vs 9: 6/10= 0.60
ii. 5 vs 10: 7/10= 0.70
jj. 6 vs 7: 9/10= 0.90
kk. 6 vs 8: 8/10= 0.80
ll. 6 vs 9: 3/10= 0.30
mm. 6 vs 10: 4/10= 0.40
nn. 7 vs 8: 8/10= 0.80
oo. 7 vs 9: 3/10= 0.30
pp. 7 vs 10: 3/10= 0.30
qq. 8 vs 9: 4/10= 0.40
rr. 8 vs 10: 4/10= 0.40
ss. 9 vs 10: 6/10= 0.60
TABLE 3. The similarity values recomputed for all OTU’s with composite OTU 6/7.
 6/7 1 2 3 4 5 8 9 10
6/ -
7
1 0.20 -
2 0.40 0.70 -
3 0.50 0.60 0.80 -
4 0.20 0.70 0.70 0.60 -
5 0.60 0.50 0.70 0.80 0.50 -
8 0.80 0.30 0.50 0.60 0.20 0.70 -
9 0.30 0.80 0.80 0.70 0.80 0.60 0.40 -
10 0.35 0.50 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.70 0.40 0.60 -

Computation:
6 vs 1+7 vs 1 0.20+0.20
6/7 vs 1: = = 0.20
2 2
6 vs 2+7 vs 2 0.40+0.40
6/7 vs 2: = = 0.40
2 2
6 vs 3+ 7 vs 3 0.50+0.50
6/7 vs 3: = = 0.50
2 2
6 vs 4+7 vs 4 0.20+0.20
6/7 vs 4: = = 0.20
2 2
6 vs 5+ 7 vs 5 0.60+0.60
6/7 vs 5: = = 0.60
2 2
6 vs 8+7 vs 8 0.80+0.80
6/7 vs 8: = = 0.80
2 2
6 vs 9+7 vs 9 0.30+0.30
6/7 vs 9: = = 0.30
2 2
6 vs 10+ 7 vs 10 0.40+0.30
6/7 vs 10: = = 0.35
2 2

TABLE 4. The similarity indices between the new composite OUT 1/9 with all the remaining
OTU’s.
1/9 6/7 2 3 4 5 8 10
1/ -
9
6/ 0.25 -
7
2 0.75 0.40 -
3 0.65 0.50 0.80 -
4 0.75 0.20 0.70 0.60 -
5 0.55 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.50 -
8 0.35 0.80 0.50 0.60 0.20 0.70 -
10 0.55 0.35 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.70 0.40 -
Computation:
6/7 vs 1+ 6/7 vs 9 0.20+0.30
1/9 vs 6/7: = = 0.25
2 2
1 vs 2+9 vs 2 0.70+0.80
1/9 vs 2: = = 0.75
2 2
1 vs 3+9 vs 3 0.60+0.70
1/9 vs 3: = = 0.65
2 2
1 vs 4 +9 vs 4 0.70+0.80
1/9 vs 4: = = 0.75
2 2
1 vs 5+9 vs 5 0.50+0.60
1/9 vs 5: = = 0.55
2 2
1 vs 8+ 9 vs 8 0.30+0.40
1/9 vs 8: = = 0.35
2 2
1 vs 10+9 vs 10 0.50+0.60
1/9 vs 10: = = 0.55
2 2

TABLE 5. The similarity indices between the new composite OUT 2/3 with all the remaining
OTU’s.
2/3 1/9 6/7 4 5 8 10
2/3 -
1/9 0.70 -
6/7 0.45 0.25 -
4 0.65 0.75 0.20 -
5 0.75 0.55 0.60 0.50 -
8 0.55 0.35 0.80 0.20 0.70 -
10 0.65 0.55 0.35 0.50 0.70 0.40 -

Computation:
1 1
vs 2+ vs 3 0.75+0.65
2/3 vs 1/9: 9 9 = = 0.70
2
2
6 6
vs 2+ vs 3 0.40+0.50
2/3 vs 6/7: 7 7 = = 0.45
2
2
2 vs 4+3 vs 4 0.70+0.60
2/3 vs 4: = = 0.65
2 2
2 vs 5+3 vs 5 0.70+0.80
2/3 vs 5: = = 0.75
2 2
2 vs 8+3 vs 8 0.50+0.60
2/3 vs 8: = = 0.55
2 2
2 vs 10+3 vs 10 0.70+0.60
2/3 vs 10: = = 0.65
2 2
TABLE 6. The similarity indices between the new composite OUT 8/6/7 with all the remaining
OTU’s.
8/6/7 2/3 1/9 4 5 10
8/6/7 -
2/3 0.50 -
1/9 0.30 0.73 -
4 0.20 0.65 0.75 -
5 0.40 0.75 0.55 0.50 -
10 0.38 0.65 0.55 0.50 0.70 -

Computation:
2 2 6
vs 8+ vs 0.55+0.45
8/6/7 vs 2/3: 3 3 7 = = 0.50
2
2
1 1 6
vs 8+ vs 0.35+0.25
8/6/7 vs 1/9: 9 9 7 = = 0.30
2
2
6
4 vs 8+ vs 4 0.20+0.20
8/6/7 vs 4: 7 = = 0.20
2
2
6
5 vs 8+ vs 5 0.20+0.60
8/6/7 vs 5: 7 = = 0.40
2
2
6
8 vs 10+ vs 10 0.40+0.35
8/6/7 vs 10: 7 = =0.38
2
2
TABLE 7. The similarity indices between the new composite OUT 4/1/9 with all the remaining
OTU’s
4/1/9 8/6/7 2/3 5 10
4/1/9 -
8/6/7 0.25 -
2/3 0.69 0.30 -
5 0.45 0.65 0.75 -
10 0.53 0.38 0.65 0.70 -
Computation:
0.20+0.30
4/1/9 vs 8/6/7: = 0.25
2
0.65+0.73
4/1/9 vs 2/3: = 0.69
2
0.50+0.40
4/1/9 vs 5: = 0.45
2
0.50+0.55
4/1/9 vs 10: = 0.53
2

TABLE 8. The similarity indices between the new composite OUT 5/2/3 with all the remaining
OTU’s
5/2/3 4/1/9 8/6/7 10
5/2/3 -
4/1/9 0.57 -
8/6/7 0.48 0.34 -
10 0.68 0.53 0.38 -
Computation:
4 4
1 1 2 0.45+0.69
5/2/3 vs 4/1/9: vs 5+ vs = = 0.57
9 9 3 2
2
8 8
6 6 2 0.65+0.30
5/2/3 vs 8/6/7: vs 5+ vs = = 0.48
7 7 3 2
2
2
10 vs 5+10 vs 0.70+0.65
5/2/3 vs 10: 3 = = 0.68
2
2
TABLE 9. The similarity indices between the new composite OUT 10/5/2/3 with all the
remaining OTU’s
10/5/2/3 4/1/9 8/6/7
10/5/2/3 -
4/1/9 0.55 -
 8/6/7 0.43 0.34 -

Computation:
4 4 5
1 1 2 0.53+ 0.57
10/5/2/3 vs 4/1/9: vs 10+ vs = 0.55
9 9 3 2
2
8 8 5
6 6 2 0.38+ 0. 48
10/5/2/3 vs 8/6/7: vs 10+ vs = = 0.43
7 7 3 2
2
TABLE 10. The similarity indices between the new composite OUT 10/5/2/3/4/1/9 with all the
remaining OTU’s
10/5/2/3/4/1/9 8/6/7
10/5/2/3/4/1/9 -
8/6/7 0.49 -
Computation:
10
5 8 4 8
0. 43+0. 55
10/5/2/3/4/1/9 vs 8/6/7: 2 6 1 6 = = 0.49
vs + vs 2
3 7 9 7
2
FIGURE 1. Phenogram of the 10 specimens

DISCUSION
The results above show the numerical taxonomy of 10 different specimens. Showing the
relationships and similarities of specimens from each other by computing it and constructing a
phenogram to show and depict how similar these specimens towards each other.
CONCLUSION
To sum it up, numerical taxonomy helps us to better understand the similarities and
relationships of both specimens from each other in numerical way. In this activity, specimen 6
and 7 is way to similar from each other because of the calculated percent wherein it shows 90 %
of similarities from each other. While on the other hand, if were going to combine both 6 and 7
and compare it with specimen 8 it shows that they are now similar from each other and shows 75
% of similarity form each other and so on and so forth. Phenogram is indeed helpful for us to
have an identification of specimens regardless with their analagous or homologous, wherein
organisms that are evolutionarily distant may be grouped closely together from each other.