Stopping Rules for Two-Sigma Structural Monophyly in Morphology-Based High-Resolution Phylogenetics

Abstract

Stopping rules for sampling designs are critical for limiting the effort needed to obtain adequate or significant data, and in many cases for conservation of the species sampled. Such rules are commonly based on pre-determined criteria or a lack of new information as sampling continues. Structural monophyly analysis of minimally monophyletic groups of one ancestral species and a few immediate ancestral species uses a series of steps, each step with a statistical evaluation that helps produce a concise model. Demonstration of two-sigma exclusion of uncertainty is a new stopping rule requirement. The full series of analytic steps has not previously been consolidated in one publication.

Keywords

Cladistics / Entropy / Evolution / Minimally monophyletic group / Monophyly / High-resolution phylogenetics / Stopping rules / Two-sigma support

Statement of the Use of Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies in the Writing Process

During the preparation of this manuscript, the author used Gemini/Google for literature searches. After using this tool/service, the author reviewed and edited the content as needed and takes full responsibility for the content of the published article.

Acknowledgments

The author is grateful to the Missouri Botanical Garden for its continued support of novel research in plant systematics.

Ethics Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All relevant data are included in the article.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The author declares that he has no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

References

[1] Zander RH.Structural Monophyly Abstractions. Res Botanica Technical Report 2025-09-30. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/396167046_Structural_Monophyly_Abstractions. (accessed on 4 December 2025).

[2] Zander RH. Biodiversity resilience in terms of evolutionary mass, velocity and force. Sustainability 2025, 17, 8272.doi:10.3390/su17188272.

[3] Morrison ML, Rosenberg NAMathematical bounds on Shannon entropy given the abundance of the ith most abundant taxon. J. Math. Biol. 2023, 87, 76. doi:10.1007/s00285-023-01997-3.

[4] Shannon CE. A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst. Tech. J. 1948, 27, 623-656. doi:10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb00917.x.

[5] Zander RH. Shannon entropy and informational redundancy in minimally monophyletic bryophyte genera. Plants 2025, 14, 3066. doi:10.3390/plants14193066.

[6] Brooks DR, Wiley EO. Evolution as Entropy: Toward a Unified Theory of Biology; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL,USA, 1988.

[7] Weber BH, Depew DJ, Smith JD. (Eds.) Entropy, Information and Evolution; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1990.

[8] Fletcher SC. The stopping rule principle and confirmational reliability. J. Gen. Philos. Sci. 2024, 55, 1-28.doi:10.1007/s10838-023-09645-6.

[9] Mitchell L, Polansky L, Newman KB. Stopping rule sampling to monitor and protect endangered species. J. Agric. Biol. Environ. Stat. 2024, 1-19. doi:10.1007/s13253-024-00649-3.

[10] Rouder JN. Optional stopping: No problem for Bayesians. Psychon Bull. Rev. 2014, 21, 301-308. doi:10.3758/s13423-014-0595-4.

[11] Nei M, Kumar S. Molecular Evolution and Phylogenetics; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2000.

[12] Uyeda JC, Zenil-Ferguson R, Pennell MW.Rethinking phylogenetic comparative methods. Syst. Biol. 2018, 67, 1091-1109.doi:10.1093/sysbio/syy031.

[13] Darwin C. The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, 1963 Edition; Washington Square Press: New York, NY, USA, 1859.

[14] Dayrat B. Ancestor-descendant relationships and the reconstruction of the Tree of Life. Paleobiology 2005, 31, 347-353.doi:10.1666/0094-8373(2005)031[0347:ARATRO]2.0.CO;2.

[15] Willis JC. Age and Area; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1922.

[16] Stevens PF. How to interpret botanical classifications: Suggestions from history. BioScience 1997, 47, 243-250.doi:10.2307/1313078.

[17] François O. A multi-epoch model for the number of species within genera. Theor. Pop. Biol. 2020, 133, 97-103.doi:10.1016/j.tpb.2019.09.007.

[18] Moonlight PW, Baldaszti L, Cardoso D, Elliott A, Särkinen T, Knapp S. Twenty years of big plant genera. Proc. R. Soc. B 2024, 291, 20240702. doi:10.1098/rspb.2024.0702.

[19] Gazzarrini E, Cersonski RK, Bercx M, Adorf CS, Marzari N. The rule of four: Anomalous distributions in the stoichiometries of inorganic compounds. NPJ Comput. Mater. 2024, 10, 73. doi:10.1038/s41524-024-01248-z.

[20] Constantin A, Bartlett D, Desmond H, Ferreira PG. Statistical patterns in the equations of physics and the emergence of a meta-law of nature. arXiv 2024, arXiv:2408.11065.

[21] Wilkins A. The Laws of Physics Appear to Follow a Mysterious Mathematical Pattern. New Scientist, 21 October 2024.Available online: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2452341-the-laws-of-physics-appear-to-follow-a-mysteriousmathematical-pattern/. (accessed on 4 March 2025).

[22] Zander RH. Fractal Evolution, Complexity and Systematics; Zetetic Publications: St. Louis, MI, USA, 2023; pp. 1-151.

[23] Brown JH, Gupta VK, Li B-L, Milne BT, Restrepo C, West GB. The fractal nature of nature: Power laws, ecological complexity and biodiversity. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 2002, 357, 619-626. doi:10.1098/rstb.2001.0993.

[24] Burlando B. The fractal geometry of evolution. J. Theor. Biol. 1993, 163, 161-172. doi:10.1006/jtbi.1993.1114.

[25] Green DM. Chaos, fractals and nonlinear dynamics in evolution and phylogeny. Trends Ecol. Evol. 1991, 6, 333-337. doi:10.1016/0169-5347(91)90042-V.

[26] Nottale L, Chaline J, Grou P.On the fractal structure of evolutionary trees. In Fractals in Biology and Medicine, Proceedings of the Third International Symposium, Ascona, Switzerand, 8-11 March 2000; Losa G, Merlini D, Nonnenmacher T, Weibel E,Eds.; Birkhauser: Basel, Switzerland, 2000; Volume 3, pp. 247-258.

[27] Cressman R, Halloway A, McNickle GG, Apaloo J, Brown JS, Vincent TL. Unlimited niche packing in a Lotka-Volterra competition game. Theor. Popul. Biol. 2017, 116, 1-17. doi:10.1016/j.tpb.2017.04.003.

[28] Zander RH. Integrative systematics with structural monophyly and ancestral signatures: Chionoloma (Bryophyta). Acad. Biol. 2024, 2, 1-14. doi:10.20935/AcadBiol7449.

[29] Jauregui-Lazo J, Brinda JC, GoFlag Consortium, Mishler BD. The phylogeny of Syntrichia: An ecologically diverse clade of mosses with an origin in South America. Amer. J. Bot. 2023, 110, e16103. doi:10.1002/ajb2.16103.

[30] Jiménez JA, Cano MJ, Guerra J. A multilocus phylogeny of the moss genus Didymodon and allied genera (Pottiaceae): Generic delimitations and their implications for systematics. J. Syst. Evol. 2021, 60, 281-304. doi: 10.1111/jse.12735.

[31] Binning G. The fractal structure of evolution. Phys. D Nonlinear Phenom. 1989, 38, 32-36. doi:10.1016/0167-2789(89)90170-X.

[32] Nicolis G, Prigogine I. Exploring Complexity: An Introduction; W.J.H. Freeman and Company: New York, NY, USA, 1989.

[33] Linders GM, Louwerse MM. Zipf’s law revisited: Spoken dialog, linguistic units, parameters, and the principle of least effort. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 2022, 30, 77-101. doi:10.3758/s13423-022-02142-9.

[34] Newman MEJ. Power laws, Pareto distributions and Zipf’s law. Contemp. Phys. 2005, 46, 323-351.doi:10.1080/00107510500052444.

[35] Heywood VH. Principles of Plant Taxonomy; Van Nostrand: New York, NY, USA, 1983.

[36] Felsenstein J. Confidence limits on phylogenies: An approach using the bootstrap. Evolution 1985, 39, 783-791.doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.1985.tb00420.x.

[37] Felsenstein J. Inferring Phylogenies; Sinauer Aoociates: Sunderland, MA, USA, 2004.

[38] Pacrat D. Help Describing Decibans? LessWrong 2013. Available online: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/hPR4jF8jJaQrJSyyZ/help-describing-decibans. (accessed on 20 May 2021).

[39] Mesarovic MD, Sreenath SN, Keene JD. Search for organizing principles: Understanding in systems biology. Syst. Biol. 2004, 1, 19-27. doi: 10.1049/sb:20045010.

[40] Gingerich PD. Rates of evolution on the time scale of the evolutionary process. Genetica 2001, 112, 127-144. doi:10.1023/A:1013311015886.

[41] Biggs CR, Yeager LA, Bolser DG, Bonsell C, Dichiera AM, Hou Z, et al. Does functional redundancy affect ecological stability and resilience? A review and meta-analysis. Ecosphere 2020, 11, e03184. doi:10.1002/ecs2.3184.

[42] Harte J, Newman EA. Maximum information entropy, a foundation for ecological theory. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2014, 29, 384-389. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2014.04.009.

[43] Van Valen L. A new evolutionary law. Evol. Theory 1973, 1, 1-30.

[44] Barraclough TG. Evolving entities: Towards a unified framework for understanding diversity at the species and higher levels, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2010, 365, 1801-1813. doi:10.1098/rstb.2009.0276.

[45] Barraclough TG, Humphreys AM. The evolutionary reality of species and higher taxa in plants: A survey of post-modern opinion and evidence. New Phytol. 2015, 207, 291-296. doi:10.1111/nph.13232.

[46] Malik V. The genus: A natural or arbitrary entity. Plant Arch. 2017, 17, 251-257.

[47] Stevens PF. The genus concept in practice: But for what practice? Kew Bull. 1985, 40, 457-465. doi:10.2307/4109605.

[48] Stevens PF. Why do we name organisms? Some reminders from the past. Taxon 2002, 51, 11-26. doi:10.2307/1554959.

[49] Mishler BD. What, If Anything, Are Species?; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2021.

[50] Swartz B, Mishler BD. Speciesism in Biology and Culture; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2022.

[51] Brower AVZ. Evolution is not a necessary assumption of cladistics. Cladistics 2000, 16, 143-154. doi:10.1006/clad.1999.0129.

[52] Sober E. Evidence and Evolution: The Logic Behind the Science; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2008.

[53] Hedtke SM, Townsend TM, Hillis DM. Resolution of phylogenetic conflict in large data sets by increased taxon sampling. Syst. Biol. 2006, 55, 522-529. doi:10.1080/10635150600697358.

[54] Lecointre G, Hervé P, Vân LHL, Hervé LG. Species sampling has a major impact on phylogenetic inference. Mol. Phylog. Evol. 1993, 2, 205-224. doi:10.1006/mpev.1993.1021.

[55] Thompson WK. Sampling; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1992.

[56] Sokal R, Sneath PHA. Principles of Numerical Taxonomy; W. H. Freeman: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1963.

[57] Wiley EO. Phylogenetics: The Theory and Practice of Phylogenetic Systematics; Wiley and Sons, Interscience: New York, NY, USA, 1981.

[58] Bergman A, Feldman MW. On the population genetics of punctuation. In Evolutionary Dynamics: Exploring the Interplay of Selection, Accident, Neutrality, and Function; Crutchfield JP, Schuster P,Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2003; pp. 81-100.

[59] Hubble SP. The Unified Neutral Theory of Biodiversity and Biogeography; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA; Oxford, UK, 2001.

[60] Kopp M. Speciation and the neutral theory of biodiversity. Bioessays 2010, 32, 564-570. doi:10.1002/bies.201000023.

[61] Hassannezhad H, Magdy M, Werner O, Ros RM. Exploring plastome diversity and molecular evolution within genus Tortula (Family Pottiaceae, Bryophyta). Plants 2025, 14, 2808. doi:10.3390/plants14172808.

[62] Hutchinson JE. Fractals and self similarity. Indiana Univ. Math. J. 1981, 30, 713-747. doi:10.1512/iumj.1981.30.30055.