The relationship between evolutionary theory and phylogenetic analysis

Graphing evolutionary pattern and process: a history of techniques in archaeology and paleobiology

Graphs displaying evolutionary patterns are common in paleontology and in United States archaeology. Both disciplines subscribed to a transformational theory of evolution and graphed evolution as a sequence of archetypes in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. U.S. archaeologists in the second decade of the twentieth century, and paleontologists shortly thereafter, developed distinct graphic styles that reflected the Darwinian variational model of evolution. Paleobiologists adopted the view of a species as a set of phenotypically variant individuals and graphed those variations either as central tendencies or as histograms of frequencies of variants. Archaeologists presumed their artifact types reflected cultural norms of prehistoric artisans and the frequency of specimens in each type reflected human choice and type popularity. They graphed cultural evolution as shifts in frequencies of specimens representing each of several artifact types. Confusion of pattern and process is exemplified by a paleobiologist misinterpreting the process illustrated by an archaeological graph, and an archaeologist misinterpreting the process illustrated by a paleobiological graph. Each style of graph displays particular evolutionary patterns and implies particular evolutionary processes. Graphs of a multistratum collection of prehistoric mammal remains and a multistratum collection of artifacts demonstrate that many graph styles can be used for both kinds of collections.

Higher-order phylogeny of modern birds (Theropoda, Aves: Neornithes) based on comparative anatomy. II. Analysis and discussion

In recent years, avian systematics has been characterized by a diminished reliance on morphological cladistics of modern taxa, intensive palaeornithogical research stimulated by new discoveries and an inundation by analyses based on DNA sequences. Unfortunately, in contrast to significant insights into basal origins, the broad picture of neornithine phylogeny remains largely unresolved. Morphological studies have emphasized characters of use in palaeontological contexts. Molecular studies, following disillusionment with the pioneering, but non-cladistic, work of Sibley and Ahlquist, have differed markedly from each other and from morphological works in both methods and findings. Consequently, at the turn of the millennium, points of robust agreement among schools concerning higher-order neornithine phylogeny have been limited to the two basalmost and several mid-level, primary groups. This paper describes a phylogenetic (cladistic) analysis of 150 taxa of Neornithes, including exemplars from all non-passeriform families, and subordinal representatives of Passeriformes. Thirty-five outgroup taxa encompassing Crocodylia, predominately theropod Dinosauria, and selected Mesozoic birds were used to root the trees. Based on study of specimens and the literature, 2954 morphological characters were defined; these characters have been described in a companion work, approximately one-third of which were multistate (i.e. comprised at least three states), and states within more than one-half of these multistate characters were ordered for analysis. Complete heuristic searches using 10 000 random-addition replicates recovered a total solution set of 97 well-resolved, most-parsimonious trees (MPTs). The set of MPTs was confirmed by an expanded heuristic search based on 10 000 random-addition replicates and a full ratchet-augmented exploration to ascertain global optima. A strict consensus tree of MPTs included only six trichotomies, i.e. nodes differing topologically among MPTs. Bootstrapping (based on 10 000 replicates) percentages and ratchet-minimized support (Bremer) indices indicated most nodes to be robust. Several fossil Neornithes (e.g. Dinornithiformes, Aepyornithiformes) were placed within the ingroup a posteriori either through unconstrained, heursitic searches based on the complete matrix augmented by these taxa separately or using backbone-constraints. Analysis confirmed the topology among outgroup Theropoda and achieved robust resolution at virtually all levels of the Neornithes. Findings included monophyly of the palaeognathous birds, comprising the sister taxa Tinamiformes and ratites, respectively, and the Anseriformes and Galliformes as monophyletic sister-groups, together forming the sister-group to other Neornithes exclusive of the Palaeognathae (Neoaves). Noteworthy inferences include: (i) the sister-group to remaining Neoaves comprises a diversity of marine and wading birds; (ii) Podicipedidae are the sister-group of Gaviidae, and not closely related to the Phoenicopteridae, as recently suggested; (iii) the traditional Pelecaniformes, including the shoebill (Balaeniceps rex) as sister-taxon to other members, are monophyletic; (iv) traditional Ciconiiformes are monophyletic; (v) Strigiformes and Falconiformes are sister-groups; (vi) Cathartidae is the sister-group of the remaining Falconiformes; (vii) Ralliformes (Rallidae and Heliornithidae) are the sister-group to the monophyletic Charadriiformes, with the traditionally composed Gruiformes and Turniciformes (Turnicidae and Mesitornithidae) sequentially paraphyletic to the entire foregoing clade; (viii) Opisthocomus hoazin is the sister-taxon to the Cuculiformes (including the Musophagidae); (ix) traditional Caprimulgiformes are monophyletic and the sister-group of the Apodiformes; (x) Trogoniformes are the sister-group of Coliiformes; (xi) Coraciiformes, Piciformes and Passeriformes are mutually monophyletic and closely related; and (xii) the Galbulae are retained within the Piciformes. Unresolved portions of the Neornithes (nodes having more than one most-parsimonious solution) comprised three parts of the tree: (a) several interfamilial nodes within the Charadriiformes; (b) a trichotomy comprising the (i) Psittaciformes, (ii) Columbiformes and (iii) Trogonomorphae (Trogoniformes, Coliiformes) + Passerimorphae (Coraciiformes, Piciformes, Passeriformes); and (c) a trichotomy comprising the Coraciiformes, Piciformes and Passeriformes. The remaining polytomies were among outgroups, although several of the highest-order nodes were only marginally supported; however, the majority of nodes were resolved and met or surpassed conventional standards of support. Quantitative comparisons with alternative hypotheses, examination of highly supportive and diagnostic characters for higher taxa, correspondences with prior studies, complementarity and philosophical differences with palaeontological phylogenetics, promises and challenges of palaeogeography and calibration of evolutionary rates of birds, and classes of promising evidence and future directions of study are reviewed. Homology, as applied to avian examples of apparent homologues, is considered in terms of recent theory, and a revised annotated classification of higher-order taxa of Neornithes and other closely related Theropoda is proposed. (c) 2007 The Linnean Society of London, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2007, 149, 1-95.

When molecules and morphology clash: reconciling conflicting phylogenies of the Metazoa by considering secondary character loss

Molecular and morphological data sets have yielded conflicting phylogenies for the Metazoa. So far, no general explanation for the existence of this conflict has been suggested. However, I believe that a neglected aspect of metazoan cladistics has introduced a systematic and substantial bias into morphological phylogenetic analyses. Most characters used for metazoan cladistics are coded as binary absence/presence characters. For most of these characters, the absence states are assumed to be uninformative default plesiomorphies, if they are defined at all. This character coding strategy could seriously underestimate the number of informative apomorphic absences or secondary character losses. Because nodes in morphological metazoan phylogenies are typically supported by relatively small numbers of characters each with a potentially strong impact on tree topology, failure to distinguish between primary absence and secondary loss of characters before a cladistic analysis may mislead morphological cladistics. This may falsely suggest conflict with molecular phylogenies, which are not sensitive to this bias. To test the existence of this bias, I compare the phylogenetic placement of a variety of metazoan taxa in molecular and morphological trees. In all instances investigated here, phylogenetic conflict can be resolved by allowing for secondary loss of morphological characters, which were assumed to be primitively absent in cladistic analyses. These findings suggest that we should be cautious in interpreting the results of morphological metazoan cladistic analyses and additionally illustrate the value of a more functional approach to comparative morphology in certain circumstances.

A molecular model for the evolution of endothermy in the theropod-bird lineage

Ectothermy is a primitive state; therefore, a shared common ancestor of crocodiles, dinosaurs, and birds was at some point ectothermic. Birds, the extant descendants of the dinosaurs, are endothermic. Neither the metabolic transition within this lineage nor the place the dinosaurs held along the ectothermic-endothermic continuum is defined. This paper presents a conceptual model for the evolution of endothermy in the theropod-bird lineage. It is recognized that other animals (some fish, insects, etc.) are functionally endothermic. However, endothermy in other clades is beyond the scope of this paper, and we address the onset of endothermy in only the theropod/bird clade. The model begins with simple changes in a single gene of a common ancestor, and it includes a series of concomitant physiological and morphological changes, beginning perhaps as early as the first archosaurian common ancestor of dinosaurs and crocodiles. These changes continued to accumulate within the theropod-avian lineage, were maintained and refined through selective forces, and culminated in extant birds. Metabolic convergence or homoplasy is evident in the inherent differences between the endothermy of mammals and the endothermy of extant birds. The strength and usefulness of this model lie in the phylogenetic, genetic, evolutionary, and adaptive plausibility of each of the suggested developmental steps toward endothermy. The model, although conceptual in nature, relies on an extensive knowledge base developed by numerous workers in each of these areas. In addition, the model integrates known genetic, metabolic, and developmental aspects of extant taxa that phylogenetically bracket theropod dinosaurs for comparison with information derived from the fossil record of related extinct taxa.

The recognition and evaluation of homoplasy in primate and human evolution

Homoplasy has been a prominent issue in primate systematics and phylogeny for as long as people have been studying human evolution. In the past, homoplasy, in the form of parallel evolution, was often considered the dominant theme in primate evolution. Today, it receives blame for difficulties in phylogenetic analysis, but is essential in the study of adaptation. This paper reviews the history of study of homoplasy, methods of defining homoplasy, and methodological and biological factors that generate homoplasy. A post hoc definition of homology and homoplasy, based on patterns of character distributions and their congruence or incongruence on a cladogram, is the most consistent method of recognizing these phenomena. Defined this way, homology and homoplasy are mutually exclusive. However, when different levels of analysis are examined, it is seen that homoplasy at one level, such as adult phenotype, often exists simultaneously with homology at a different level, such as developmental process. Thus, in some cases, patterns of homoplasy may point to underlying similarities that reflect the shared heritage of a particular clade. This is an old concept that is being renewed on the strength of recent trends in developmental biology. Factors that influence homoplasy include character definition and a host of biological factors, such as developmental constraints, allometry, and adaptation. These interact with one another to provide explanations of homoplastic patterns. Because of the repetition of events, explanations of homoplastic features are often more reliable than those for homologous features, and serve as effective tests for hypotheses of evolutionary process. In some cases, particular explanations of homoplasy lead to generalizations about the likelihood of homoplasy in a type of structure. The structure may be adaptive or highly epigenetic, or it may belong to an anatomical system considered to be more prone to homoplasy than others. However, our review shows that these generalizations are usually based on theory, and contradictory expectations can be developed under different theoretical models. More rigorous empirical studies are necessary to discover what, if any, generalizations can be made about the likelihood of homoplasy in different types of characters.