Complex data produce better characters.

Two studies were conducted to explore the use of complex data in character description and hybrid identification. In order to determine if complex data allow the production of better characters, eight groups of plant systematists were given two classes of drawings of plant parts, and asked to divide them into character states (clusters) in two separate experiments. The first class of drawings consisted only of cotyledons. The second class consisted of triplets of drawings: a cotyledon, seedling leaf, and inflorescence bract. The triplets were used to simulate complex data such as might be garnered by looking at a plant. Each experiment resulted in four characters (groups of clusters), one for each group of systematists. Visual and statistical analysis of the data showed that the systematists were able to produce smaller, more precisely defined character states using the more complex drawings. The character states created with the complex drawings also were more consistent across systematists, and agreed more closely with an independent assessment of phylogeny. To investigate the utility of complex data in an applied task, four observers rated 250 hybrids of Dubautia ciliolata X arborea based on the overall form (Gestalt) of the plants, and took measurements of a number of features of the same plants. A composite score of the measurements was created using principal components analysis. The correlation between the scores on the first principal component and the Gestalt ratings was computed. The Gestalt ratings and PC scores were significantly correlated, demonstrating that assessments of overall similarity can be as useful as more conventional approaches in determining the hybrid status of plants.

[1]  D. Swofford When are phylogeny estimates from molecular and morphological data incongruent , 1991 .

[2]  J. Tanaka,et al.  Features and their configuration in face recognition , 1997, Memory & cognition.

[3]  Tod F. Stuessy,et al.  Plant Taxonomy: The Systematic Evaluation of Comparative Data , 2009 .

[4]  K. Thiele THE HOLY GRAIL OF THE PERFECT CHARACTER: THE CLADISTIC TREATMENT OF MORPHOMETRIC DATA , 1993, Cladistics : the international journal of the Willi Hennig Society.

[5]  G. D. Carr,et al.  Monograph of the Hawaiian Madiinae (Asteraceae): Argyroxiphium, Dubautia and Wilkesia , 1987 .

[6]  Olivier Rieppel,et al.  2 – HOMOLOGY, TOPOLOGY, AND TYPOLOGY: THE HISTORY OF MODERN DEBATES , 1994 .

[7]  J. Hawkins,et al.  Primary Homology Assessment, Characters and Character States , 1997, Cladistics : the international journal of the Willi Hennig Society.

[8]  M. Sanderson,et al.  Age and rate of diversification of the Hawaiian silversword alliance (Compositae). , 1998, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[9]  Julie A. Hawkins,et al.  A survey of primary homology assessment: different botanists perceive and define characters in different ways , 2000 .

[10]  Michael P. Cummings,et al.  PAUP* [Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony (and Other Methods)] , 2004 .

[11]  J. Farris THE RETENTION INDEX AND THE RESCALED CONSISTENCY INDEX , 1989, Cladistics : the international journal of the Willi Hennig Society.

[12]  S. Carey,et al.  Why faces are and are not special: an effect of expertise. , 1986, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[13]  L. Brooks,et al.  Nonanalytic Cognition: Memory, Perception, and Concept Learning , 1984 .

[14]  Robert L. Goldstone Unitization during category learning. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[15]  D. Frost,et al.  Anguid lizards of the genus Abronia: Revisionary notes , 1993 .

[16]  Vernon Heywood,et al.  Principles of angiosperm taxonomy , 1964 .

[17]  E. Rosch,et al.  Cognition and Categorization , 1980 .

[18]  Evelyn Fox Keller,et al.  Keywords in evolutionary biology , 1994 .

[19]  M. Donoghue 12 – COMPLEXITY AND HOMOLOGY IN PLANTS , 1994 .

[20]  Thomas L. Spalding,et al.  Effects of background knowledge on category construction , 1996 .

[21]  F. Zuloaga,et al.  A cladistic analysis of the Paniceae: a preliminary approach. , 2000 .

[22]  G. Wagner The character concept in evolutionary biology , 2001 .

[23]  Brian K. Hall,et al.  Homology: The hierarchical basis of comparative biology , 1994 .

[24]  W. W. Moss,et al.  Taxonomic Repeatability: An Experimental Approach , 1971 .

[25]  D. McShea COMPLEXITY AND HOMOPLASY , 1996 .

[26]  E. Anderson,et al.  INTROGRESSIVE HYBRIDIZATION IN PHLOX BIFIDA , 1952 .

[27]  P. Stevens Character States, Morphological Variation, and Phylogenetic Analysis: A Review , 1991 .

[28]  D. H. Colless,et al.  On “Character” and Related Terms , 1985 .

[29]  K. Fristrup 1 – A History of Character Concepts in Evolutionary Biology , 2001 .

[30]  E. Anderson CONCORDANT VERSUS DISCORDANT VARIATION IN RELATION TO INTROGRESSION , 1951 .

[31]  V. Schawaroch,et al.  THREE STEPS OF HOMOLOGY ASSESSMENT , 1996, Cladistics : the international journal of the Willi Hennig Society.

[32]  N. Jardine,et al.  The observational and theoretical components of homology: a study based on the morphology of the dermal skull‐roofs of rhipidistian fishes , 1969 .

[33]  Mário C. C. Pinna CONCEPTS AND TESTS OF HOMOLOGY IN THE CLADISTIC PARADIGM , 1991 .

[34]  Yoshio Takane,et al.  Multidimensional scaling models for reaction times and same-different judgments , 1983 .

[35]  W. Hennig Phylogenetic Systematics , 2002 .

[36]  D. Ord,et al.  PAUP:Phylogenetic analysis using parsi-mony , 1993 .

[37]  Tod F. Stuessy,et al.  Plant Taxonomy. The Systematic Evaluation of Comparative Data. , 1991 .

[38]  P. Stevens,et al.  Homology and Phylogeny: Morphology and Systematics , 1984 .

[39]  J. Farris,et al.  Quantitative Phyletics and the Evolution of Anurans , 1969 .

[40]  Dennis C. Hay,et al.  Configural information in face recognition , 1987 .

[41]  Henri Bortoft The Wholeness of Nature , 1996 .

[42]  G. Wells,et al.  Memory for faces: Encoding and retrieval operations , 1984, Memory & cognition.

[43]  M. Farah,et al.  What causes the face inversion effect? , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[44]  A. Yuille Deformable Templates for Face Recognition , 1991, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[45]  N. Platnick Philosophy and the Transformation of Cladistics , 1979 .

[46]  R. Sokal,et al.  An Experiment in Taxonomic Judgment , 1980 .

[47]  P. Stevens,et al.  Vagaries in the delimitation of character states in quantitative variation--an experimental study. , 1997, Systematic biology.

[48]  N. Mantel The detection of disease clustering and a generalized regression approach. , 1967, Cancer research.

[49]  Gillian Rhodes,et al.  What's lost in inverted faces? , 1993, Cognition.

[50]  T. Givnish,et al.  Historical biogeography and the origin of stomatal distributions in Banksia and Dryandra (Proteaceae) based on their cpDNA phylogeny. , 2002, American journal of botany.

[51]  Michael J. Sanderson,et al.  Homoplasy. The Recurrence of Similarity in Evolution. , 1997 .

[52]  M. Conrad Evolving hierarchical systems: Stanley N. Salthe, Columbia University Press, New York, 1985, 343pp. (US$32.50) , 1987 .

[53]  Roderic D. M. Page,et al.  TreeView: an application to display phylogenetic trees on personal computers , 1996, Comput. Appl. Biosci..

[54]  M. Tarr,et al.  Training ‘greeble’ experts: a framework for studying expert object recognition processes , 1998, Vision Research.

[55]  E. N. Adams Consensus Techniques and the Comparison of Taxonomic Trees , 1972 .

[56]  M. Tarr,et al.  Unraveling mechanisms for expert object recognition: bridging brain activity and behavior. , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[57]  J. Schooler,et al.  Verbal overshadowing of visual memories: Some things are better left unsaid , 1990, Cognitive Psychology.