A parametric bootstrap approach to the detection of phylogenetic signals in landmark data

A phylogenetic signal is present in a morphometric data set if similarities in form reflect genealogical relationships. The degree to which such a reflection exists can be measured by comparing the topology of a morphometric-based hierarchical clustering with the topology of a cladogram that is specified a priori using other sources of data. A strong phylogenetic signal is indicated by a high degree of agreement between topologies. A lack of agreement is indicative either of data with a strong “alternative” signal (attributable to homoplasy) or of data with a lack of a signal of any kind. In considering the uncertainties inherent in morphometric data, we present a new method for detecting phylogenetic signals when form is described using landmark coordinate data. We provide a parametric bootstrapping algorithm that, while applied to landmarks, is general enough to be applied to any sort of morphometric data where a reasonable model of within-sample variation can be specified. We then demonstrate how the bootstrap data can be used to make topological comparisons between morphometric clusterings and the cladogram, using: 1) bootstrap proportions attached to cladogram nodes; 2) tree-comparison statistics; and 3) analysis of the frequencies of morphometric-based clusterings that occur when bootstrapping under the model. We then demonstrate our method by examining phylogenetic patterning in midfacial shape for ateline primates. We conclude by discussing topics where more research is needed, concentrating on efforts to partition morphometric data into homologous and homoplasious components.

[1]  J. Felsenstein Numerical Methods for Inferring Evolutionary Trees , 1982, The Quarterly Review of Biology.

[2]  D. Houle Comparing evolvability and variability of quantitative traits. , 1992, Genetics.

[3]  F. Bookstein “Size and Shape”: A Comment on Semantics , 1989 .

[4]  C. Humphries,et al.  CLADISTICS AND COMPUTERS: A CHIRONOMID CONUNDRUM? , 1988 .

[5]  M. Zelditch,et al.  Phylogenetic Analysis of Ontogenetic Shape Transformations: A Reassessment of the Piranha Genus Pygocentrus (Teleostei) , 1995 .

[6]  Richard A. Pimentcl,et al.  THE NATURE OF CLADISTIC DATA , 1987, Cladistics : the international journal of the Willi Hennig Society.

[7]  D. H. Colless The Phenogram as an Estimate of Phylogeny , 1970 .

[8]  Anthony C. Davison,et al.  Bootstrap Methods and Their Application , 1998 .

[9]  P. Legendre,et al.  A statistical framework to test the consensus of two nested classifications , 1990 .

[10]  Robert Tibshirani,et al.  Bootstrap Methods for Standard Errors, Confidence Intervals, and Other Measures of Statistical Accuracy , 1986 .

[11]  S. Gould,et al.  The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme , 1979, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences.

[12]  J. Neyman,et al.  Consistent Estimates Based on Partially Consistent Observations , 1948 .

[13]  Subhash R. Lele,et al.  A new test for shape differences when variance–covariance matrices are unequal , 1996 .

[14]  P. Alberch Developmental Constraints: Why St. Bernards Often Have an Extra Digit and Poodles Never Do , 1985, The American Naturalist.

[15]  D. Brooks EXPLANATIONS OF HOMOPLASY AT DIFFERENT LEVELS OF BIOLOGICAL ORGANIZATION , 1996 .

[16]  S. Lele,et al.  Some comments on coordinate-free and scale-invariant methods in morphometrics. , 1991, American journal of physical anthropology.

[17]  J. Malley,et al.  Size and shape analysis of schistomsome egg-counts in Egyptian autopsy data. , 1978, Biometrics.

[18]  J. Huelsenbeck,et al.  Signal, noise, and reliability in molecular phylogenetic analyses. , 1992, The Journal of heredity.

[19]  A. Edwards Likelihood (Expanded Edition) , 1972 .

[20]  M. Pagel Inferring the historical patterns of biological evolution , 1999, Nature.

[21]  Miriam Leah Zelditch,et al.  MORPHOMETRICS, HOMOLOGY, AND PHYLOGENETICS: QUANTIFIED CHARACTERS AS SYNAPOMORPHIES , 1995 .

[22]  F. Rohlf Methods of Comparing Classifications , 1974 .

[23]  J. Bull,et al.  An Empirical Test of Bootstrapping as a Method for Assessing Confidence in Phylogenetic Analysis , 1993 .

[24]  S. Lele Euclidean Distance Matrix Analysis (EDMA): Estimation of mean form and mean form difference , 1993 .

[25]  J. Chappill QUANTITATIVE CHARACTERS IN PHYLOGENETIC ANALYSIS , 1989 .

[26]  B Rannala,et al.  Accommodating phylogenetic uncertainty in evolutionary studies. , 2000, Science.

[27]  J. Coddington CLADISTIC TESTS OF ADAPTATIONAL HYPOTHESES , 1988, Cladistics : the international journal of the Willi Hennig Society.

[28]  Günter P. Wagner,et al.  Methods for the Comparative Analysis of Variation Patterns , 1989 .

[29]  G. Lauder Functional morphology and systematics : studying functional patterns in an historical context , 1990 .

[30]  F J Rohlf,et al.  On applications of geometric morphometrics to studies of ontogeny and phylogeny. , 1998, Systematic biology.

[31]  Fred L. Bookstein,et al.  5 – CAN BIOMETRICAL SHAPE BE A HOMOLOGOUS CHARACTER? , 1994 .

[32]  L. Hubert Generalized proximity function comparisons , 1978 .

[33]  D. Adams,et al.  Partial warps, phylogeny, and ontogeny: a comment on Fink and Zelditch (1995). , 1998, Systematic biology.

[34]  F. Anapol,et al.  Morphological adaptation to diet in platyrrhine primates. , 1994, American journal of physical anthropology.

[35]  George V. Lauder,et al.  Form and function: structural analysis in evolutionary morphology , 1981, Paleobiology.

[36]  S. J. Arnold,et al.  THE MEASUREMENT OF SELECTION ON CORRELATED CHARACTERS , 1983, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[37]  S. Lele,et al.  Euclidean distance matrix analysis: a coordinate-free approach for comparing biological shapes using landmark data. , 1991, American journal of physical anthropology.

[38]  J. Felsenstein Phylogenies and quantitative characters , 1988 .

[39]  C. Goodall Procrustes methods in the statistical analysis of shape , 1991 .

[40]  D. Wake,et al.  Multidimensional Analysis of an Evolving Lineage , 1987, Science.

[41]  Richard A. Johnson,et al.  Applied Multivariate Statistical Analysis , 1983 .

[42]  P. Alberch Ontogenesis and Morphological Diversification , 1980 .

[43]  B. Silverman Density estimation for statistics and data analysis , 1986 .

[44]  A. Rosenberger,et al.  Evolution of feeding niches in New World monkeys. , 1992, American journal of physical anthropology.

[45]  Fred L. Bookstein,et al.  A Comment on Shearing as a Method for “Size Correction” , 1987 .

[46]  R. Sokal,et al.  THE COMPARISON OF DENDROGRAMS BY OBJECTIVE METHODS , 1962 .

[47]  M. Pagel,et al.  The comparative method in evolutionary biology , 1991 .

[48]  J. Cheverud,et al.  THE QUANTITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF PHYLOGENETIC CONSTRAINTS IN COMPARATIVE ANALYSES: SEXUAL DIMORPHISM IN BODY WEIGHT AMONG PRIMATES , 1985, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[49]  François-Joseph Lapointe,et al.  Statistical Significance of the Matrix Correlation Coefficient for Comparing Independent Phylogenetic Trees , 1992 .

[50]  Joseph T. Chang,et al.  THE MEASUREMENT OF HOMOPLASY: A STOCHASTIC VIEW , 1996 .

[51]  D. Falconer,et al.  Introduction to Quantitative Genetics. , 1961 .

[52]  W. Bock,et al.  ADAPTATION AND THE FORM–FUNCTION COMPLEX , 1965 .

[53]  Robert Tibshirani,et al.  An Introduction to the Bootstrap , 1994 .

[54]  Subhash R. Lele,et al.  Invariance and Morphometrics , 1998 .

[55]  George Gaylord Simpson,et al.  Principles of Animal Taxonomy , 1961 .

[56]  S. Lanyon,et al.  DETECTING INTERNAL INCONSISTENCIES IN DISTANCE DATA , 1985 .

[57]  J. Felsenstein CONFIDENCE LIMITS ON PHYLOGENIES: AN APPROACH USING THE BOOTSTRAP , 1985, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[58]  B. Efron,et al.  Bootstrap confidence levels for phylogenetic trees. , 1996, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[59]  D. Penny,et al.  The Use of Tree Comparison Metrics , 1985 .

[60]  D. Schluter,et al.  Using Phylogenies to Test Macroevolutionary Hypotheses of Trait Evolution in Cranes (Gruinae) , 1999, The American Naturalist.

[61]  A Piazza,et al.  Analysis of evolution: evolutionary rates, independence and treeness. , 1975, Theoretical population biology.

[62]  F L Bookstein,et al.  Biometrics, biomathematics and the morphometric synthesis. , 1996, Bulletin of mathematical biology.

[63]  K. Strier,et al.  Adaptive radiation of the ateline primates , 1989 .

[64]  Joan T. Richtsmeier,et al.  Statistical Models in Morphometrics: Are they Realistic? , 1990 .

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

[66]  F J Ayala,et al.  Estimation and interpretation of genetic distance in empirical studies. , 1982, Genetical research.

[67]  William L. Fink,et al.  The conceptual relationship between ontogeny and phylogeny , 1982, Paleobiology.