Fossils improve phylogenetic analyses of morphological characters

Fossils provide our only direct window into evolutionary events in the distant past. Incorporating them into phylogenetic hypotheses of living clades can help time-calibrate divergences, as well as elucidate macroevolutionary dynamics. However, the effect fossils have on phylogenetic reconstruction from morphology remains controversial. The consequences of explicitly incorporating the stratigraphic ages of fossils using tip-dated inference are also unclear. Here, we use simulations to evaluate the performance of inference methods across different levels of fossil sampling and missing data. Our results show that fossil taxa improve phylogenetic analysis of morphological datasets, even when highly fragmentary. Irrespective of inference method, fossils improve the accuracy of phylogenies and increase the number of resolved nodes. They also induce the collapse of ancient and highly uncertain relationships that tend to be incorrectly resolved when sampling only extant taxa. Furthermore, tip-dated analyses under the fossilized birth-death process outperform undated methods of inference, demonstrating that the stratigraphic ages of fossils contain vital phylogenetic information. Fossils help to extract true phylogenetic signals from morphology, an effect that is mediated by both their distinctive morphology and their temporal information, and their incorporation in total-evidence phylogenetics is necessary to faithfully reconstruct evolutionary history.

Bayesian Tip-Dated Phylogenetics in Paleontology: Topological Effects and Stratigraphic Fit

The incorporation of stratigraphic data into phylogenetic analysis has a long history of debate but is not currently standard practice for paleontologists. Bayesian tip-dated (or morphological clock) phylogenetic methods have returned these arguments to the spotlight, but how tip dating affects the recovery of evolutionary relationships has yet to be fully explored. Here I show, through analysis of several data sets with multiple phylogenetic methods, that topologies produced by tip dating are outliers as compared to topologies produced by parsimony and undated Bayesian methods, which retrieve broadly similar trees. Unsurprisingly, trees recovered by tip dating have better fit to stratigraphy than trees recovered by other methods under both the Gap Excess Ratio (GER) and the Stratigraphic Completeness Index (SCI). This is because trees with better stratigraphic fit are assigned a higher likelihood by the fossilized birth-death tree model. However, the degree to which the tree model favors tree topologies with high stratigraphic fit metrics is modulated by the diversification dynamics of the group under investigation. In particular, when net diversification rate is low, the tree model favors trees with a higher GER compared to when net diversification rate is high. Differences in stratigraphic fit and tree topology between tip dating and other methods are concentrated in parts of the tree with weaker character signal, as shown by successive deletion of the most incomplete taxa from two data sets. These results show that tip dating incorporates stratigraphic data in an intuitive way, with good stratigraphic fit an expectation that can be overturned by strong evidence from character data. [fossilized birth-death; fossils; missing data; morphological clock; morphology; parsimony; phylogenetics.].

Parsimony, not Bayesian analysis, recovers more stratigraphically congruent phylogenetic trees

Reconstructing evolutionary histories requires accurate phylogenetic trees. Recent simulation studies suggest that probabilistic phylogenetic analyses of morphological data are more accurate than traditional parsimony techniques. Here, we use empirical data to compare Bayesian and parsimony phylogenies in terms of their congruence with the distribution of age ranges of the component taxa. Analysis of 167 independent morphological data matrices of fossil tetrapods finds that Bayesian trees exhibit significantly lower stratigraphic congruence than the equivalent parsimony trees. As such, taking stratigraphic data as an independent benchmark indicates that parsimony analyses are more accurate for phylogenetic reconstruction of morphological data. The discrepancy between simulated and empirical studies may result from historic data peaking practices or some complexities of empirical data as yet unaccounted for.

Measuring Stratigraphic Congruence Across Trees, Higher Taxa, and Time

The congruence between the order of cladistic branching and the first appearance dates of fossil lineages can be quantified using a variety of indices. Good matching is a prerequisite for the accurate time calibration of trees, while the distribution of congruence indices across large samples of cladograms has underpinned claims about temporal and taxonomic patterns of completeness in the fossil record. The most widely used stratigraphic congruence indices are the stratigraphic consistency index (SCI), the modified Manhattan stratigraphic measure (MSM*), and the gap excess ratio (GER) (plus its derivatives; the topological GER and the modified GER). Many factors are believed to variously bias these indices, with several empirical and simulation studies addressing some subset of the putative interactions. This study combines both approaches to quantify the effects (on all five indices) of eight variables reasoned to constrain the distribution of possible values (the number of taxa, tree balance, tree resolution, range of first occurrence (FO) dates, center of gravity of FO dates, the variability of FO dates, percentage of extant taxa, and percentage of taxa with no fossil record). Our empirical data set comprised 647 published animal and plant cladograms spanning the entire Phanerozoic, and for these data we also modeled the effects of mean age of FOs (as a proxy for clade age), the taxonomic rank of the clade, and the higher taxonomic group to which it belonged. The center of gravity of FO dates had not been investigated hitherto, and this was found to correlate most strongly with some measures of stratigraphic congruence in our empirical study (top-heavy clades had better congruence). The modified GER was the index least susceptible to bias. We found significant differences across higher taxa for all indices; arthropods had lower congruence and tetrapods higher congruence. Stratigraphic congruence-however measured-also varied throughout the Phanerozoic, reflecting the taxonomic composition of our sample. Notably, periods containing a high proportion of arthropods had poorer congruence overall than those with higher proportions of tetrapods. [Fossil calibration; gap excess ratio; manhattan stratigraphic metric; molecular clocks; stratigraphic congruence.].

Statistical evidence for common ancestry: Application to primates

Since Darwin, biologists have come to recognize that the theory of descent from common ancestry (CA) is very well supported by diverse lines of evidence. However, while the qualitative evidence is overwhelming, we also need formal methods for quantifying the evidential support for CA over the alternative hypothesis of separate ancestry (SA). In this article, we explore a diversity of statistical methods using data from the primates. We focus on two alternatives to CA, species SA (the separate origin of each named species) and family SA (the separate origin of each family). We implemented statistical tests based on morphological, molecular, and biogeographic data and developed two new methods: one that tests for phylogenetic autocorrelation while correcting for variation due to confounding ecological traits and a method for examining whether fossil taxa have fewer derived differences than living taxa. We overwhelmingly rejected both species and family SA with infinitesimal P values. We compare these results with those from two companion papers, which also found tremendously strong support for the CA of all primates, and discuss future directions and general philosophical issues that pertain to statistical testing of historical hypotheses such as CA.

'Fish' (Actinopterygii and Elasmobranchii) diversification patterns through deep time

Actinopterygii (ray-finned fishes) and Elasmobranchii (sharks, skates and rays) represent more than half of today's vertebrate taxic diversity (approximately 33000 species) and form the largest component of vertebrate diversity in extant aquatic ecosystems. Yet, patterns of 'fish' evolutionary history remain insufficiently understood and previous studies generally treated each group independently mainly because of their contrasting fossil record composition and corresponding sampling strategies. Because direct reading of palaeodiversity curves is affected by several biases affecting the fossil record, analytical approaches are needed to correct for these biases. In this review, we propose a comprehensive analysis based on comparison of large data sets related to competing phylogenies (including all Recent and fossil taxa) and the fossil record for both groups during the Mesozoic-Cainozoic interval. This approach provides information on the 'fish' fossil record quality and on the corrected 'fish' deep-time phylogenetic palaeodiversity signals, with special emphasis on diversification events. Because taxonomic information is preserved after analytical treatment, identified palaeodiversity events are considered both quantitatively and qualitatively and put within corresponding palaeoenvironmental and biological settings. Results indicate a better fossil record quality for elasmobranchs due to their microfossil-like fossil distribution and their very low diversity in freshwater systems, whereas freshwater actinopterygians are diverse in this realm with lower preservation potential. Several important diversification events are identified at familial and generic levels for elasmobranchs, and marine and freshwater actinopterygians, namely in the Early-Middle Jurassic (elasmobranchs), Late Jurassic (actinopterygians), Early Cretaceous (elasmobranchs, freshwater actinopterygians), Cenomanian (all groups) and the Paleocene-Eocene interval (all groups), the latter two representing the two most exceptional radiations among vertebrates. For each of these events along with the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction, we provide an in-depth review of the taxa involved and factors that may have influenced the diversity patterns observed. Among these, palaeotemperatures, sea-levels, ocean circulation and productivity as well as continent fragmentation and environment heterogeneity (reef environments) are parameters that largely impacted on 'fish' evolutionary history, along with other biotic constraints.

Short lesson plan associated with increased acceptance of evolutionary theory and potential change in three alternate conceptions of macroevolution in undergraduate students

Undergraduates commonly harbor alternate conceptions about evolutionary biology; these alternate conceptions often persist, even after intensive instruction, and may influence acceptance of evolution. We interviewed undergraduates to explore their alternate conceptions about macroevolutionary patterns and designed a 2-h lesson plan to present evidence that life has evolved. We identified three alternate conceptions during our interviews: that newly derived traits would be more widespread in extant species than would be ancestral traits, that evolution proceeds solely by anagenesis, and that lineages must become more complex over time. We also attempted to measure changes in the alternate conceptions and levels of acceptance of evolutionary theory in biology majors and nonmajors after exposure to the lesson plan. The instrument used to assess understanding had flaws, but our results are suggestive of mixed effects: we found a reduction in the first alternate conception, no change in the second, and reinforcement of the third. We found a small, but significant, increase in undergraduate acceptance of evolutionary theory in two trials of the lesson plan (Cohen's d effect sizes of 0.51 and 0.19). These mixed results offer guidance on how to improve the lesson and show the potential of instructional approaches for influencing acceptance of evolution.

Assessing the quality of the fossil record: insights from vertebrates

Assessing the quality of the fossil record is notoriously hard, and many recent attempts have used sampling proxies that can be questioned. For example, counts of geological formations and estimated outcrop areas might not be defensible as reliable sampling proxies: geological formations are units of enormously variable dimensions that depend on rock heterogeneity and fossil content (and so are not independent of the fossil record), and outcrop areas are not always proportional to rock exposure, probably a closer indicator of rock availability. It is shown that in many cases formation counts will always correlate with fossil counts, whatever the degree of sampling. It is not clear, in any case, that these proxies provide a good estimate of what is missing in the gap between the known fossil record and reality; rather they largely explore the gap between known and potential fossil records. Further, using simple, single numerical metrics to correct global-scale raw data, or to model sampling-driven patterns may be premature. There are perhaps four approaches to exploring the incompleteness of the fossil record, (1) regional-scale studies of geological completeness; (2) regional- or clade-scale studies of sampling completeness using comprehensive measures of sampling, such as numbers of localities or specimens or fossil quality; (3) phylogenetic and gap-counting methods; and (4) model-based approaches that compare sampling as one of several explanatory variables with measures of environmental change, singly and in combination. We suggest that palaeontologists, like other scientists, should accept that their data are patchy and incomplete, and use appropriate methods to deal with this issue in each analysis. All that matters is whether the data are adequate for a designated study or not. A single answer to the question of whether the fossil record is driven by macroevolution or megabias is unlikely ever to emerge because of temporal, geographical, and taxonomic variance in the data.

Stratocladistics: Integrating Temporal Data and Character Data in Phylogenetic Inference

Debate has long simmered over whether data on the order of appearance of taxa in the stratigraphic record should play any role in analyses of phylogenetic relationships among those taxa. Critics argue that temporal data are in principle inapplicable to questions of cladistic relationship, but specific versions of this claim all seem flawed. Stratocladistics offers a methodological context (patterned after that of cladistics itself) within which temporal data participate along with conventional character data in selecting most-parsimonious hypotheses. Stratocladistics outperforms cladistics in tests based on simulated histories, and additional testing will be facilitated by new software automating stratocladistic searches. As with any body of data, we may decide to include or exclude temporal data for specific reasons, but the explanatory power of hypotheses that use both temporal and conventional character data exceeds that of hypotheses based on character data alone.

Fossil ghost ranges are most common in some of the oldest and some of the youngest strata

Biologists routinely compare inferences about the order of evolutionary branching (phylogeny) with the order in which groups appear in the fossil record (stratigraphy). Where they conflict, ghost ranges are inferred: intervals of geological time where a fossil lineage should exist, but for which there is no direct evidence. The presence of very numerous and/or extensive ghost ranges is often believed to imply spurious phylogenies or a misleadingly patchy fossil record, or both. It has usually been assumed that the frequency of ghost ranges should increase with the age of rocks. Previous studies measuring ghost ranges for whole trees in just a small number of temporal bins have found no significant increase with antiquity. This study uses a much higher resolution approach to investigate the gappiness implied by 1,000 animal and plant cladograms over 77 series and stages of the Phanerozoic. It demonstrates that ghost ranges are indeed relatively common in some of the oldest strata. Surprisingly, however, ghost ranges are also relatively common in some of the youngest, fossil-rich rocks. This pattern results from the interplay between several complex factors and is not a simple function of the completeness of the fossil record. The Early Palaeozoic record is likely to be less organismically and stratigraphically complete, and its fossils -- many of which are invertebrates-may be more difficult to analyse cladistically. The Late Cenozoic is subject to the pull of the Recent, but this accounts only partially for the increased gappiness in the younger strata.

Uncertainty in the Age of Fossils and the Stratigraphic Fit to Phylogenies

The ages of first appearance of fossil taxa in the stratigraphic record are inherently associated to an interval of error or uncertainty, rather than being precise point estimates. Contrasting this temporal information with topologies of phylogenetic relationships is relevant to many aspects of evolutionary studies. Several indices have been proposed to compare the ages of first appearance of fossil taxa and phylogenies. For computing most of these indices, the ages of first appearance of fossil taxa are currently used as point estimates, ignoring their associated errors or uncertainties. The effect of age uncertainty on measures of stratigraphic fit to phylogenies is explored here for two indices based on the extension of ghost lineages (MSM* and GER). A solution based on randomization of the ages of terminal taxa is implemented, resulting in a range of possible values for measures of stratigraphic fit to phylogenies, rather than in a precise but arbitrary stratigraphic fit value. Sample cases show that ignoring the age uncertainty of fossil taxa can produce misleading results when comparing the stratigraphic fit of competing phylogenetic hypotheses. Empirical test cases of alternative phylogenies of two dinosaur groups are analyzed through the randomization procedure proposed here.

The quality of the fossil record of Mesozoic birds

The Mesozoic fossil record has proved critical for understanding the early evolution and subsequent radiation of birds. Little is known, however, about its relative completeness: just how 'good' is the fossil record of birds from the Mesozoic? This question has come to prominence recently in the debate over differences in estimated dates of origin of major clades of birds from molecular and palaeontological data. Using a dataset comprising all known fossil taxa, we present analyses that go some way towards answering this question. Whereas avian diversity remains poorly represented in the Mesozoic, many relatively complete bird specimens have been discovered. New taxa have been added to the phylogenetic tree of basal birds, but its overall shape remains constant, suggesting that the broad outlines of early avian evolution are consistently represented: no stage in the Mesozoic is characterized by an overabundance of scrappy fossils compared with more complete specimens. Examples of Neornithes (modern orders) are known from later stages in the Cretaceous, but their fossils are rarer and scrappier than those of basal bird groups, which we suggest is a biological, rather than a geological, signal.

Finding the tree of life: matching phylogenetic trees to the fossil record through the 20th century

Phylogenies, or evolutionary trees, are fundamental to biology. Systematists have laboured since the time of Darwin to discover the tree of life. Recent developments in systematics, such as cladistics and molecular sequencing, have led practitioners to believe that their phylogenies are more testable now than equivalent efforts from the 1960s or earlier. Whole trees, and nodes within trees, may be assessed for their robustness. However, these quantitative approaches cannot be used to demonstrate that one tree is more likely to be correct than another. Congruence assessments may help. Comparison of a sample of 1000 published trees with an essentially independent standard (dates of origin of groups in geological time) shows that the order of branching has improved slightly, but the disparity between estimated times of origination from phylogeny and stratigraphy has, if anything, become worse. Controlled comparisons of phylogenies of four major groups (Agnatha, Sarcopterygii, Sauria and Mammalia) do not show uniform improvement, or decline, of fit to stratigraphy through the twentieth century. Nor do morphological or molecular trees differ uniformly in their performance.

Early origins of modern birds and mammals: molecules vs. morphology

Recent claims from molecular evidence that modern orders of birds and mammals arose in the Early Cretaceous, over 100 million years (Myr) ago, are contrary to palaeontological evidence. The oldest fossils generally fall in the time range from 70-50 Myr ago, with no earlier finds. If the molecular results are correct, then the first half of the fossil record of modern birds and mammals is missing. Suggestions that this early history was played out in unexplored parts of the world, or that the early progenitors were obscure forms, are unlikely. Intense collecting over hundreds of years has failed to identify these missing fossils. Control experiments, in the form of numerous Cretaceous-age fossil localities which yield excellently preserved lizards, salamanders, birds, and mammals, fail to show the modern forms. The most likely explanation is that they simply did not exist, and that the molecular clock runs fast during major radiations.

Molecular and morphological phylogenies of mammals: congruence with stratigraphic data

Tests of a sample of 206 cladograms of mammals show that morphological data seem to predict phylogenies that match the known fossil record better than molecular trees. Three metrics that assess the rank order of branching points, the stratigraphic consistency of those nodes, and the ratio of ghost range to known range show a considerable diversity of values. Some published trees show excellent matching with fossil-record data; others show almost no correspondence whatsoever. Morphological trees are nearly twice as good as molecular trees in terms of matching of the rank orders of nodes and oldest fossils, while morphological trees are 10% better than molecular in terms of stratigraphic consistency of the nodes. The ratios of ghost range to known range are lower for molecular trees. Among the molecular trees, those based on gene data are considerably better than those based on protein sequences, at least in terms of the rank order of nodes and the stratigraphic consistency of nodes. Protein trees, however, were best of all in terms of minimizing the proportion of ghost range. These findings probably indicate real phenomena, but the match of molecular trees to the expectations of stratigraphy may improve as the study of molecular phylogeny matures.