title: When can clades be potentially resolved with morphology?
abstract: Morphology-based phylogenetic analyses are the only option for reconstructing relationships among extinct lineages, but often find support for conflicting hypotheses of relationships. The resulting lack of phylogenetic resolution is generally explained in terms of data quality and methodological issues, such as character selection. A previous suggestion is that sampling ancestral morphotaxa or sampling multiple taxa descended from a long-lived, unchanging lineage can also yield clades which have no opportunity to share synapomorphies. This lack of character information leads to a lack of 'intrinsic' resolution, an issue that cannot be solved with additional morphological data. It is unclear how often we should expect clades to be intrinsically resolvable in realistic circumstances, as intrinsic resolution must increase as taxonomic sampling decreases. Using branching simulations, I quantify intrinsic resolution across several models of morphological differentiation and taxonomic sampling. Intrinsically unresolvable clades are found to be relatively frequent in simulations of both extinct and living taxa under realistic sampling scenarios, implying that intrinsic resolution is an issue for morphology-based analyses of phylogeny. Simulations which vary the rates of sampling and differentiation were tested for their agreement to observed distributions of durations from well-sampled fossil records and also having high intrinsic resolution. This combination only occurs in those datasets when differentiation and sampling rates are both unrealistically high relative to branching and extinction rates. Thus, the poor phylogenetic resolution occasionally observed in morphological phylogenetics may result from a lack of intrinsic resolvability within groups.
authors: Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA. dwbapst@uchicago.edu
authors: David W
authors: DW
authors: Bapst
mesh_terms: D002965:Classification / Q000379:methods*; D016000:Cluster Analysis; D005580:Fossils; D008962:Models, Theoretical; D010363:Pattern Recognition, Automated; D010802:Phylogeny
references: Geology. 1995 Apr;23(4):305-8
references: 11539503
references: Syst Biol. 2010 Dec;59(6):646-59
references: 20861283
references: Science. 1986 Jan 10;231(4734):129-33
references: 17842630
references: Syst Biol. 2007 Oct;56(5):753-66
references: 17886145
references: Paleobiology. 1996 Spring;22(2):121-40
references: 11539203
references: Am Nat. 2004 Oct;164(4):431-43
references: 15459876
references: Proc Biol Sci. 2011 Apr 7;278(1708):1003-8
references: 20880884
references: Nature. 1999 Apr 1;398(6726):415-7
references: 11536900
references: BMC Evol Biol. 2007 Jul 19;7:121
references: 17640383
references: Bioinformatics. 2004 Jan 22;20(2):289-90
references: 14734327
references: Evolution. 1971 Mar;25(1):156-167
references: 28562952
references: Evolution. 1990 Sep;44(6):1671-1684
references: 28564306
references: Biol Lett. 2012 Feb 23;8(1):143-6
references: 21795266
references: Cladistics. 1989 Dec;5(4):365-377
references: 34933477
references: Syst Biol. 2000 Mar;49(1):65-86
references: 12116484
references: Science. 2010 Jan 8;327(5962):196-8
references: 20056888
references: Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1998 Feb 28;353(1366):315-26
references: 11541734
references: Syst Biol. 2003 Aug;52(4):539-48
references: 12857644