Morphological Data Sets Fit a Common Mechanism Much More Poorly than DNA Sequences and Call Into Question the Mkv Model

Abstract The Mkv evolutionary model, based on minor modifications to models of molecular evolution, is being increasingly used to infer phylogenies from discrete morphological data, often producing different results from parsimony. The critical difference between Mkv and parsimony is the assumption of a “common mechanism” in the Mkv model, with branch lengths determining that probability of change for all characters increases or decreases at the same tree branches by the same exponential factor. We evaluate whether the assumption of a common mechanism applies to morphology, by testing the implicit prediction that branch lengths calculated from different subsets of characters will be significantly correlated. Our analysis shows that DNA (38 data sets tested) is often compatible with a common mechanism, but morphology (86 data sets tested) generally is not, showing very disparate branch lengths for different character partitions. The low levels of branch length correlation demonstrated for morphology (fitting models without a common mechanism) suggest that the Mkv model is too unrealistic and inadequate for the analysis of most morphological data sets. [Bayesian analysis; Mkv model; morphological data; phylogenetics.]

[1]  P. Goloboff,et al.  Weighted parsimony outperforms other methods of phylogenetic inference under models appropriate for morphology , 2018, Cladistics : the international journal of the Willi Hennig Society.

[2]  P. Goloboff,et al.  Parsimony and model‐based phylogenetic methods for morphological data: comments on O'Reilly et al. , 2018 .

[3]  Jianzhi Zhang Neutral Theory and Phenotypic Evolution. , 2018, Molecular biology and evolution.

[4]  Ziheng Yang,et al.  Bayesian selection of misspecified models is overconfident and may cause spurious posterior probabilities for phylogenetic trees , 2018, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[5]  Thomas Guillerme,et al.  Morphological phylogenetic analysis with inapplicable data , 2017, bioRxiv.

[6]  A. von Haeseler,et al.  Complex Models of Sequence Evolution Require Accurate Estimators as Exemplified with the Invariable Site Plus Gamma Model , 2017, bioRxiv.

[7]  Mark N. Puttick,et al.  Uncertain-tree: discriminating among competing approaches to the phylogenetic analysis of phenotype data , 2016, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[8]  Robert Lanfear,et al.  PartitionFinder 2: New Methods for Selecting Partitioned Models of Evolution for Molecular and Morphological Phylogenetic Analyses. , 2016, Molecular biology and evolution.

[9]  Michael S. Y. Lee Multiple morphological clocks and total-evidence tip-dating in mammals , 2016, Biology Letters.

[10]  P. Goloboff,et al.  TNT version 1.5, including a full implementation of phylogenetic morphometrics , 2016, Cladistics : the international journal of the Willi Hennig Society.

[11]  Mark N. Puttick,et al.  Bayesian methods outperform parsimony but at the expense of precision in the estimation of phylogeny from discrete morphological data , 2016, Biology Letters.

[12]  S. Tarasov,et al.  Innovative Bayesian and Parsimony Phylogeny of Dung Beetles (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae, Scarabaeinae) Enhanced by Ontology-Based Partitioning of Morphological Characters , 2015, PloS one.

[13]  H. Larsson,et al.  Among-character rate variation distributions in phylogenetic analysis of discrete morphological characters. , 2015, Systematic biology.

[14]  April M. Wright,et al.  Bayesian Analysis Using a Simple Likelihood Model Outperforms Parsimony for Estimation of Phylogeny from Discrete Morphological Data , 2014, PloS one.

[15]  S. Ho,et al.  ClockstaR: choosing the number of relaxed-clock models in molecular phylogenetic analysis , 2014, Bioinform..

[16]  Alexandros Stamatakis,et al.  RAxML version 8: a tool for phylogenetic analysis and post-analysis of large phylogenies , 2014, Bioinform..

[17]  Katrin Nyakatura,et al.  Updating the evolutionary history of Carnivora (Mammalia): a new species-level supertree complete with divergence time estimates , 2012, BMC Biology.

[18]  Maxim Teslenko,et al.  MrBayes 3.2: Efficient Bayesian Phylogenetic Inference and Model Choice Across a Large Model Space , 2012, Systematic biology.

[19]  K. Gull,et al.  Detailed interrogation of trypanosome cell biology via differential organelle staining and automated image analysis , 2012, BMC Biology.

[20]  Marc A Suchard,et al.  Biologically inspired phylogenetic models strongly outperform the no common mechanism model. , 2011, Systematic biology.

[21]  M. Holder,et al.  The akaike information criterion will not choose the no common mechanism model. , 2010, Systematic biology.

[22]  Paul C. Sereno,et al.  Comparative cladistics , 2009, Cladistics : the international journal of the Willi Hennig Society.

[23]  M. Steel Can we avoid "SIN" in the house of "no common mechanism"? , 2009, Systematic biology.

[24]  Pablo A. Goloboff,et al.  TNT, a free program for phylogenetic analysis , 2008 .

[25]  M. Steel,et al.  Difficulties in testing for covarion-like properties of sequences under the confounding influence of changing proportions of variable sites. , 2008, Molecular biology and evolution.

[26]  J. Huelsenbeck,et al.  A Bayesian perspective on a non-parsimonious parsimony model. , 2008, Systematic biology.

[27]  K. Middleton,et al.  Mosaicism, modules, and the evolution of birds: results from a Bayesian approach to the study of morphological evolution using discrete character data. , 2008, Systematic biology.

[28]  C. Simon,et al.  Accurate branch length estimation in partitioned Bayesian analyses requires accommodation of among-partition rate variation and attention to branch length priors. , 2006, Systematic biology.

[29]  Victor A. Albert,et al.  Parsimony, phylogeny, and genomics , 2006 .

[30]  Bryan Kolaczkowski,et al.  Performance of maximum parsimony and likelihood phylogenetics when evolution is heterogeneous , 2004, Nature.

[31]  Elliott Sober,et al.  The contest between parsimony and likelihood. , 2004, Systematic biology.

[32]  P. Lewis A likelihood approach to estimating phylogeny from discrete morphological character data. , 2001, Systematic biology.

[33]  P. Goloboff PARSIMONY AND WEIGHTING: A REPLY TO TURNER AND ZANDEE , 1995, Cladistics : the international journal of the Willi Hennig Society.

[34]  W. Maddison Missing Data versus Missing Characters in Phylogenetic Analysis , 1993 .

[35]  P. Goloboff ESTIMATING CHARACTER WEIGHTS DURING TREE SEARCH , 1993, Cladistics : the international journal of the Willi Hennig Society.

[36]  W. Fitch,et al.  An improved method for determining codon variability in a gene and its application to the rate of fixation of mutations in evolution , 1970, Biochemical Genetics.

[37]  J. Farris The Logical Basis of Phylogenetic Analysis , 2004 .

[38]  Mike Steel,et al.  Links between maximum likelihood and maximum parsimony under a simple model of site substitution , 1997 .

[39]  T. Jukes CHAPTER 24 – Evolution of Protein Molecules , 1969 .

[40]  H. Munro,et al.  Mammalian protein metabolism , 1964 .