War and peace in phylogenetics: a rejoinder on total evidence and consensus.

For more than 10 years, systematists have been debating the superiority of character or taxonomic congruence in phylogenetic analysis. In this paper, we demonstrate that the competing approaches can converge to the same solution when a consensus method that accounts for branch lengths is selected. Thus, we propose to use both methods in combination, as a way to corroborate the results of combined and separate analyses. This so-called "global congruence" approach is tested with a wide variety of examples sampled from the literature, and the results are compared with those obtained by standard consensus methods. Our analyses show that when the total evidence and consensus trees differ topologically, collapsing weakly supported nodes with low bootstrap support usually improves "global congruence".

[1]  R. Sokal,et al.  Significance tests of Consensus Indices , 1986 .

[2]  F. Rohlf.  Consensus indices for comparing classifications , 1982 .

[3]  J. Doyle,et al.  Gene Trees and Species Trees: Molecular Systematics as One-Character Taxonomy , 1992 .

[4]  J. Farris,et al.  The implications of congruence in Menidia , 1981 .

[5]  M. Miyamoto,et al.  Phylogenetic assessment of molecular and morphological data for eutherian mammals. , 1999, Systematic biology.

[6]  K. Bremer.  COMBINABLE COMPONENT CONSENSUS , 1990, Cladistics : the international journal of the Willi Hennig Society.

[7]  John J. Wiens,et al.  Weighting, Partitioning, and Combining Characters in Phylogenetic Analysis , 1994 .

[8]  J. Bull,et al.  Combining data in phylogenetic analysis. , 1996, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[9]  Richard G. Olmstead,et al.  Combining Data in Phylogenetic Systematics: An Empirical Approach Using Three Molecular Data Sets in the Solanaceae , 1994 .

[10]  J. Bull,et al.  Is character weighting a Panacea for the problem of data heterogeneity in phylogenetic analysis , 1994 .

[11]  E. Kellogg,et al.  Testing for Phylogenetic Conflict Among Molecular Data Sets in the Tribe Triticeae (Gramineae) , 1996 .

[12]  A. Kluge,et al.  CLADISTICS: WHAT'S IN A WORD? , 1993, Cladistics : the international journal of the Willi Hennig Society.

[13]  Gareth Nelson,et al.  Cladistic Analysis and Synthesis: Principles and Definitions, with a Historical Note on Adanson's Familles Des Plantes (1763–1764) , 1979 .

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

[15]  A. Kluge.  A Concern for Evidence and a Phylogenetic Hypothesis of Relationships among Epicrates (Boidae, Serpentes) , 1989 .

[16]  François-Joseph Lapointe,et al.  For Consensus (With Branch Lengths) , 1998 .

[17]  M. Steel,et al.  Distributions of Tree Comparison Metrics—Some New Results , 1993 .

[18]  M. Donoghue,et al.  The Suitability of Molecular and Morphological Evidence in Reconstructing Plant Phylogeny , 1992 .

[19]  A. Kluge.  Total Evidence Or Taxonomic Congruence: Cladistics Or Consensus Classification , 1998, Cladistics : the international journal of the Willi Hennig Society.

[20]  J. Bull,et al.  Partitioning and combining data in phylogenetic analysis , 1993 .

[21]  J. McGuire,et al.  Morphology, molecules, and the phylogenetics of cetaceans. , 1998, Systematic biology.

[22]  F. James Rohlf,et al.  Taxonomic Congruence in the Leptopodomorpha Re-examined , 1981 .

[23]  F. Lapointe,et al.  DNA-hybridisation Studies of Marsupials and their Implications for Metatherian Classification , 1997 .

[24]  R DeSalle,et al.  Multiple sources of character information and the phylogeny of Hawaiian drosophilids. , 1997, Systematic biology.

[25]  D. Robinson,et al.  Comparison of phylogenetic trees , 1981 .

[26]  Junhyong Kim.  Improving the Accuracy of Phylogenetic Estimation by Combining Different Methods , 1993 .

[27]  C. Bult,et al.  TESTING SIGNIFICANCE OF INCONGRUENCE , 1994 .

[28]  C. Rowell,et al.  Combined molecular phylogenetic analysis of the Orthoptera (Arthropoda, Insecta) and implications for their higher systematics. , 1999, Systematic biology.

[29]  L. Cavalli-Sforza,et al.  PHYLOGENETIC ANALYSIS: MODELS AND ESTIMATION PROCEDURES , 1967, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[30]  K. E. Omland.  Character Congruence Between a Molecular and a Morphological Phylogeny for Dabbling Ducks (ANAS) , 1994 .

[31]  Andy Purvis,et al.  Phylogenetic supertrees: Assembling the trees of life. , 1998, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[32]  Fred R. McMorris,et al.  Consensusn-trees , 1981 .

[33]  F. Lapointe,et al.  Total evidence, consensus, and bat phylogeny: A distance-based approach. , 1999, Molecular phylogenetics and evolution.

[34]  Michael M. Miyamoto,et al.  TESTING SPECIES PHYLOGENIES AND PHYLOGENETIC METHODS WITH CONGRUENCE , 1995 .

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

[36]  A. Larson.  The comparison of morphological and molecular data in phylogenetic systematics. , 1994, EXS.

[37]  François-Joseph Lapointe,et al.  THE AVERAGE CONSENSUS PROCEDURE: COMBINATION OF WEIGHTED TREES CONTAINING IDENTICAL OR OVERLAPPING SETS OF TAXA , 1997 .

[38]  Allen G. Rodrigo,et al.  A randomisation test of the null hypothesis that two cladograms are sample estimates of a parametric phylogenetic tree , 1993 .

[39]  MOLECULAR AND MORPHOLOGICAL DATA PROVIDE PHYLOGENETIC RESOLUTION AT DIFFERENT HIERARCHICAL LEVELS IN ANDIRA , 1996 .

[40]  F. Lapointe.  How to validate phylogenetic trees? A stepwise procedure , 1998 .

[41]  A. Queiroz.  For Consensus (Sometimes) , 1993 .

[42]  F. Lutzoni,et al.  Phylogeny of lichen- and non-lichen-forming omphalinoid mushrooms and the utility of testing for combinability among multiple data sets. , 1997, Systematic biology.

[43]  M. Milinkovitch,et al.  Stability of cladistic relationships between Cetacea and higher-level artiodactyl taxa. , 1999, Systematic biology.

[44]  M. Ryan,et al.  Phylogeny of frogs of the Physalaemus pustulosus species group, with an examination of data incongruence. , 1998, Systematic biology.

[45]  M. Miyamoto,et al.  CONSENSUS CLADOGRAMS AND GENERAL CLASSIFICATIONS , 1985, Cladistics : the international journal of the Willi Hennig Society.

[46]  D. Hillis,et al.  Molecular Versus Morphological Approaches to Systematics , 1987 .

[47]  F. Lapointe,et al.  Jackknifing of weighted trees: validation of phylogenies reconstructed from distance matrices. , 1994, Molecular phylogenetics and evolution.

[48]  Junhyong Kim,et al.  Separate Versus Combined Analysis of Phylogenetic Evidence , 1995 .

[49]  J. Wendel,et al.  Biogeography and floral evolution of baobabs (Adansonia, Bombacaceae) as inferred from multiple data sets. , 1998, Systematic biology.