Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "並系群" in Chinese language version.
Symphyta and Apocrita have long been considered as suborders of Hymenoptera but since recognition of the paraphyletic nature of the Symphyta (Köningsmann 1977, Rasnitsyn 1988) and the advent of cladistic methods the subordinal classification should be avoided. Likewise the woodwasps are thought to be non-monophyletic, forming a grade that is ancestral relative to Apocrita and Orussidae. The traditional hymenopteran classification is faulty, by cladistic criteria,in the same way as pre-cladistic vertebrate classifications in which groups sharing plesiomorphic characterswere recognized as natural, e.g., fishes were once grouped together as 'Pisces', which excluded tetrapods.[广腰亚目和细腰亚目长期以来一直被认为是膜翅目的两个亚目,但由於认识到广腰亚目的並系性(Köningsmann 1977,Rasnitsyn 1988),加上支序學分類法的出现,这样的亚目分类应當避免。同样的,树蜂被认为是非單系的,形成了一个相对於细腰亚目和尾蜂科的祖先级别。传统的膜翅目分类是错误的,根据支序学的标准,这种情况与支序学出现之前的脊椎动物分类相同,那时认为具有共同祖徵的类群是自然的,例如鱼类曾被统一归为“鱼纲”,将四足动物排除在外。]
Symphyta and Apocrita have long been considered as suborders of Hymenoptera but since recognition of the paraphyletic nature of the Symphyta (Köningsmann 1977, Rasnitsyn 1988) and the advent of cladistic methods the subordinal classification should be avoided. Likewise the woodwasps are thought to be non-monophyletic, forming a grade that is ancestral relative to Apocrita and Orussidae. The traditional hymenopteran classification is faulty, by cladistic criteria,in the same way as pre-cladistic vertebrate classifications in which groups sharing plesiomorphic characterswere recognized as natural, e.g., fishes were once grouped together as 'Pisces', which excluded tetrapods.[广腰亚目和细腰亚目长期以来一直被认为是膜翅目的两个亚目,但由於认识到广腰亚目的並系性(Köningsmann 1977,Rasnitsyn 1988),加上支序學分類法的出现,这样的亚目分类应當避免。同样的,树蜂被认为是非單系的,形成了一个相对於细腰亚目和尾蜂科的祖先级别。传统的膜翅目分类是错误的,根据支序学的标准,这种情况与支序学出现之前的脊椎动物分类相同,那时认为具有共同祖徵的类群是自然的,例如鱼类曾被统一归为“鱼纲”,将四足动物排除在外。]
It is now thought that the possession of two cotyledons is an ancestral feature for the taxa of the flowering plants and not an apomorphy for any group within. The 'dicots' ... are paraphyletic ...[目前认为,拥有两个子叶是开花植物类群的祖先特徵,而不是任何类群内部的衍徵。“双子叶植物”……是並系的……]
Symphyta and Apocrita have long been considered as suborders of Hymenoptera but since recognition of the paraphyletic nature of the Symphyta (Köningsmann 1977, Rasnitsyn 1988) and the advent of cladistic methods the subordinal classification should be avoided. Likewise the woodwasps are thought to be non-monophyletic, forming a grade that is ancestral relative to Apocrita and Orussidae. The traditional hymenopteran classification is faulty, by cladistic criteria,in the same way as pre-cladistic vertebrate classifications in which groups sharing plesiomorphic characterswere recognized as natural, e.g., fishes were once grouped together as 'Pisces', which excluded tetrapods.[广腰亚目和细腰亚目长期以来一直被认为是膜翅目的两个亚目,但由於认识到广腰亚目的並系性(Köningsmann 1977,Rasnitsyn 1988),加上支序學分類法的出现,这样的亚目分类应當避免。同样的,树蜂被认为是非單系的,形成了一个相对於细腰亚目和尾蜂科的祖先级别。传统的膜翅目分类是错误的,根据支序学的标准,这种情况与支序学出现之前的脊椎动物分类相同,那时认为具有共同祖徵的类群是自然的,例如鱼类曾被统一归为“鱼纲”,将四足动物排除在外。]
Symphyta and Apocrita have long been considered as suborders of Hymenoptera but since recognition of the paraphyletic nature of the Symphyta (Köningsmann 1977, Rasnitsyn 1988) and the advent of cladistic methods the subordinal classification should be avoided. Likewise the woodwasps are thought to be non-monophyletic, forming a grade that is ancestral relative to Apocrita and Orussidae. The traditional hymenopteran classification is faulty, by cladistic criteria,in the same way as pre-cladistic vertebrate classifications in which groups sharing plesiomorphic characterswere recognized as natural, e.g., fishes were once grouped together as 'Pisces', which excluded tetrapods.[广腰亚目和细腰亚目长期以来一直被认为是膜翅目的两个亚目,但由於认识到广腰亚目的並系性(Köningsmann 1977,Rasnitsyn 1988),加上支序學分類法的出现,这样的亚目分类应當避免。同样的,树蜂被认为是非單系的,形成了一个相对於细腰亚目和尾蜂科的祖先级别。传统的膜翅目分类是错误的,根据支序学的标准,这种情况与支序学出现之前的脊椎动物分类相同,那时认为具有共同祖徵的类群是自然的,例如鱼类曾被统一归为“鱼纲”,将四足动物排除在外。]
It is now thought that the possession of two cotyledons is an ancestral feature for the taxa of the flowering plants and not an apomorphy for any group within. The 'dicots' ... are paraphyletic ...[目前认为,拥有两个子叶是开花植物类群的祖先特徵,而不是任何类群内部的衍徵。“双子叶植物”……是並系的……]
Symphyta and Apocrita have long been considered as suborders of Hymenoptera but since recognition of the paraphyletic nature of the Symphyta (Köningsmann 1977, Rasnitsyn 1988) and the advent of cladistic methods the subordinal classification should be avoided. Likewise the woodwasps are thought to be non-monophyletic, forming a grade that is ancestral relative to Apocrita and Orussidae. The traditional hymenopteran classification is faulty, by cladistic criteria,in the same way as pre-cladistic vertebrate classifications in which groups sharing plesiomorphic characterswere recognized as natural, e.g., fishes were once grouped together as 'Pisces', which excluded tetrapods.[广腰亚目和细腰亚目长期以来一直被认为是膜翅目的两个亚目,但由於认识到广腰亚目的並系性(Köningsmann 1977,Rasnitsyn 1988),加上支序學分類法的出现,这样的亚目分类应當避免。同样的,树蜂被认为是非單系的,形成了一个相对於细腰亚目和尾蜂科的祖先级别。传统的膜翅目分类是错误的,根据支序学的标准,这种情况与支序学出现之前的脊椎动物分类相同,那时认为具有共同祖徵的类群是自然的,例如鱼类曾被统一归为“鱼纲”,将四足动物排除在外。]