In phylogenetics, basal is the direction of the base (or root) of a rooted phylogenetic tree or cladogram. The term may be more strictly applied only to nodes adjacent to the root, or more loosely applied to nodes regarded as being close to the root. Note that extant taxa that lie on branches connecting directly to the root are not more closely related to the root than any other extant taxa.
While there must always be two or more equally "basal" clades sprouting from the root of every cladogram, those clades may differ widely in taxonomic rank,[n 1] species diversity, or both.[n 2] If C is a basal clade within D that has the lowest rank of all basal clades within D,[n 3] C may be described as the basal taxon of that rank within D.[n 4] The concept of a 'key innovation' implies some degree of correlation between evolutionary innovation and diversification.[n 5] However, such a correlation does not make a given case predicable, so ancestral characters should not be imputed to the members of a less species-rich basal clade without additional evidence.[n 6]
In general, clade A is more basal than clade B if B is a subgroup of the sister group of A or of A itself.[n 7] Within large groups, "basal" may be used loosely to mean 'closer to the root than the great majority of', and in this context terminology such as "very basal" may arise. A 'core clade' is a clade representing all but the basal clade(s) of lowest rank within a larger clade; e.g., core eudicots. Of course, no extant taxon is closer to the root than any other, by definition.
A basal group in the stricter sense forms a sister group to the rest of the larger clade, as in the following case:
Basal clade #2
While it is easy to identify a basal clade in such a cladogram, the appropriateness of such an identification is dependent on the accuracy and completeness of the diagram. It is often assumed in this example that the terminal branches of the cladogram depict all the extant taxa of a given rank within the clade; this is one reason the term basal is highly deceptive, as the lack of additional species in one clade is taken as evidence of morphological affinity with ancestral taxa. Additionally, this qualification does not ensure that the diversity of extinct taxa (which may be poorly known) is represented.
In phylogenetics, the term basal cannot be objectively applied to clades of organisms, but tends to be applied selectively and more controversially to groups or lineages[n 8] thought to possess ancestral characters, or to such presumed ancestral traits themselves. In describing characters, "ancestral" or "plesiomorphic" are preferred to "basal" or "primitive", the latter of which may carry false connotations of inferiority or a lack of complexity. The terms ''deep-branching'' or ''early-branching'' are similar in meaning, and equally may misrepresent extant taxa that lie on branches connecting directly to the root node as having more ancestral character states.
Despite the ubiquity of the usage of basal, systematists try to avoid its usage because its application to extant groups is unnecessary and misleading. The term is more often applied when one branch (the one deemed "basal") is less diverse than another branch (this being the situation in which one would expect to find a basal taxon of lower minimum rank). The term may be equivocal in that it also refers to the direction of the root of the tree, which represents a hypothetical ancestor; this consequently may inaccurately imply that the sister group of a more species-rich clade displays ancestral features. An extant basal group may or may not resemble the last common ancestor of a larger clade to a greater degree than other groups, and is separated from that ancestor by the same amount of time as all other extant groups. However, there are cases where the unusually small size of a sister group does indeed correlate with an unusual number of ancestral traits, as in Amborella (see below). This is likely a source of the mis-use of the term. Other famous examples of this phenomenon are the oviparous reproduction and nipple-less lactation of monotremes, a clade of mammals with just five species, and the archaic anatomy of the tuatara, a basal clade of lepidosaurian with a single species.
The flowering plant family Amborellaceae, restricted to New Caledonia in the southwestern Pacific,[n 9] is a basal clade of extant angiosperms, consisting of the most species, genus, family and order within the group that are sister to all other angiosperms (out of a total of about 250,000 angiosperm species). The traits of Amborella trichopoda are regarded as providing significant insight into the evolution of flowering plants; for example, it has "the most primitive wood (consisting only of tracheids), of any living angiosperm" as well as "simple, separate flower parts of indefinite numbers, and unsealed carpels". However, those traits are a mix of archaic and apomorphic (derived) features that have only been sorted out via comparison with other angiosperms and their positions within the phylogenetic tree (the fossil record could potentially also be helpful in this respect, but is absent in this case). The cladogram below is based on Ramírez-Barahona et al. (2020), with species counts taken from the source indicated.
Within the great apes, gorillas (eastern and western) are a sister group to chimpanzees, bonobos and humans. These five species form a clade, the subfamily Homininae (African apes), of which Gorilla has been termed the basal genus. However, if the analysis is not restricted to genera, the Homo plus Pan clade is also basal.
Moreover, orangutans are a sister group to Homininae and are the basal genus in the great ape family Hominidae as a whole.
Subfamilies Homininae and Ponginae are both basal within Hominidae, but given that there are no nonbasal subfamilies in the cladogram it is unlikely the term would be applied to either. In general, a statement to the effect that one group (e.g., orangutans) is basal, or branches off first, within another group (e.g., Hominidae) may not make sense unless the appropriate taxonomic level(s) (genus, in this case) is specified. If that level cannot be specified (i.e., if the clade in question is unranked) a more detailed description of the relevant sister groups may be needed. As can be seen, the term is not reflective of ancestral states or proximity to the common ancestor of extant species.
In this example, orangutans differ from the other genera in their Asian range. This fact plus their basal status provides a hint that the most recent common ancestor of extant great apes may have been Eurasian (see below), a suggestion that is consistent with other evidence. (Of course, lesser apes are entirely Asiatic.) However, orangutans also differ from African apes in their more highly arboreal lifestyle, a trait generally viewed as ancestral among the apes.
Given that the deepest phylogenetic split in a group is likely to have occurred early in its history, identification of the most basal subclade(s) in a widely dispersed taxon or clade can provide valuable insight into its region of origin; however, the lack of additional species in a clade is not evidence that it carries the ancestral state for most traits. Most deceptively, people often believe that the direction of migration away from the area of origin can also be inferred (as in the Amaurobioides and Noctilionoidea cases below). As with all other traits, the phylogeographic location of one clade that connects to the root does not provide information about the ancestral state. Examples where such unjustified inferences may have been made include: