Phylogenetic incongruence and homoplasy in the appendages and bodies of arthropods: why broad character sampling is best
Phylogenetic incongruence and homoplasy in the appendages and bodies of arthropods: why broad character sampling is best
复制标题
DOI：
10.1093/zoolinnean/zlz024
复制
发表时间：
2019-09-01
影响因子：
2.8
通讯作者：
Wills, Matthew A.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Brinkworth, Andrew R.;Sansom, Robert;Wills, Matthew A.
尽管分子序列数据的采样密度迅速增加，但形态特征仍然对我们理解节肢动物群体的进化关系做出重要贡献。在许多分支，字符有关的数量和形态专业化的附属物被赋予特定的系统发育的意义，并可能会优先采样。然而，以往的研究表明，分区的形态特征矩阵往往意味着显着不同的同源性。在这里，我们问是否有类似的不一致观察节肢动物的附属物和非附属物字符。我们应用树的长度（不一致的长度差，ILD）和树的距离（不一致的关系差，IRD）测试，这些分区在经验样本的53个已发表的节肢动物的新本体数据集。我们发现显着的不一致约五分之一的时间：比预期的更频繁，但显着低于以前的分区研究。我们还发现相似水平的同质性在肢体和非肢体字符，无论是在内部的一致性和一致性相对于分子树。两者合计，这些研究结果意味着，采样肢体和非肢体字符是相似的系统发育的效用和质量，和一个总的证据方法来分析是可取的。
Notwithstanding the rapidly increasing sampling density of molecular sequence data, morphological characters still make an important contribution to our understanding of the evolutionary relationships of arthropod groups. In many clades, characters relating to the number and morphological specialization of appendages are ascribed particular phylogenetic significance and may be preferentially sampled. However, previous studies have shown that partitions of morphological character matrices often imply significantly different phylogenies. Here, we ask whether a similar incongruence is observed in the appendage and non-appendage characters of arthropods. We apply tree length (incongruence length difference, ILD) and tree distance (incongruence relationship difference, IRD) tests to these partitions in an empirical sample of 53 published neontological datasets for arthropods. We find significant incongruence about one time in five: more often than expected, but markedly less often than in previous partition studies. We also find similar levels of homoplasy in limb and non-limb characters, both in terms of internal consistency and consistency relative to molecular trees. Taken together, these findings imply that sampled limb and non-limb characters are of similar phylogenetic utility and quality, and that a total evidence approach to their analysis is preferable.