Full text
| |
| Author(s): |
Leandro Cézanne de Souza Assis
Total Authors: 1
|
| Document type: | Doctoral Thesis |
| Press: | São Paulo. |
| Institution: | Universidade de São Paulo (USP). Instituto de Biociências (IBIOC/SB) |
| Defense date: | 2009-05-21 |
| Examining board members: |
Renato de Mello Silva;
João Batista Baitello;
Cassio Van Den Berg;
Mario Cesar Cardoso de Pinna;
Vinicius Castro Souza
|
| Advisor: | Renato de Mello Silva |
| Abstract | |
Approaches as homology, construction of taxa, and phylogeny reconstruction can be contextualized and investigated through a historical and current connection between systematics and philosophy. The present thesis defends this scientific-philosophical connection, having as study case both the Ocotea complex, which embraces 13 genera and 750 species predominantly Neotropical, and the Ocotea indecora group, with 20 species and centre of diversity in the Atlantic forest from Southeastern Brazil. The chapter 1 discusses the conceptualization of taxa and homologies (taxic and transformative) as both individuals and natural kinds (or homeostatic property cluster kinds). Although these conceptualizations are not mutually exclusive metaphysically, the perspective of natural kinds is endorsed, whereas that of individuals challenged, based on the motivation for empirical-pragmatic and theoretical-explanatory aspects in systematics and evolution. The chapter 2 focuses on the renaissance of morphology in phylogenetic systematics based on two theories of truth in epistemology, i.e., coherence and correspondence, calling for a unification of both theories from a fundherentist theory of epistemic justification of hypotheses of phylogenetic relationship. The role and meaning of morphology are also discussed in the context of separate and combined analyses, paleontology, natural kinds, character concept, homology, synapomorphy, semaphoront, modularity, and taxonomy. The renaissance of morphology is not only dependent on a scientific-philosophical perspective but it is also dependent on a political, economic, social, and educational reform in contemporary systematics. The chapter 3 is a phylogeny of the Ocotea complex with combined analysis of morphology and ITS nuclear ribosomal region. The role and meaning of morphological and molecular evidence, separate and combined analyses, as well as modularity and homology are discussed. Subclades within the Ocotea complex are inferred and delimited by morphological synapomorphies. A perspective of phylogenetic classification of the genera of the Ocotea complex is provided. The chapter 4 treats of taxonomic and nomenclatural changes in the O. indecora group, basically synonyms, lectotypifications, and a new combination. The chapter 5 is a revision of O. indecora group based on the analysis of ca. 550 collections. Identification key, descriptions, as well as comments on its circumscription, distribution, habitat, phenology, and taxonomic relationships of its species are provided. (AU) | |