Phylogeny reconstruction: The role of morphology

Systematic Biology

Volumn 52, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 539-548

  Scotland, Robert W ^a   Olmstead, Richard G ^b   Bennett, Jonathan R ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPARATIVE ANATOMY; PHYLOGENY; REVIEW; SAMPLE SIZE;

ANATOMY, COMPARATIVE; PHYLOGENY; SAMPLE SIZE;

EID: 0041568323     PISSN: 10635157     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10635150309309     Document Type: Review

References (124)

1. ARCHIE, J. W. 1985. Methods for coding variable morphological features for numerical taxonomic analysis. Syst. Zool. 34:326-345.
2. BAKER, R. H., Y. XIAOBO, AND R. DESALLE. 1998. Assessing the relative contribution of molecular and morphological characters in simultaneous analysis trees. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 9:427-436.
3. BARKMAN, T. J., G. CHENERY, J. R. MCNEAL, J. LYONS-WEILER, W. J. ELLISENS, G. MOORE, A. D. WOLFE, AND C. W. DEPAMPHILIS. 2000. Independent and combined analyses of sequences from all three genomic compartments converge on the root of flowering plant phylogeny. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 97:13166-13171.
4. BAUM, D. A., K. J. SYTSMA, AND P. C. HOCH. 1994. A phylogenetic analysis of Epilobium (Onagraceae) based on nuclear ribosomal DNA sequences. Syst. Bot. 19:363-388.
5. BENNETT, J. R., AND R. W. SCOTLAND. 2003. A revision of Strobilanthes (Acanthaceae) in Java. Kew Bull. 58:1-82.
6. BENTON, M. J. 1998. Molecular and morphological phylogenies of mammals: Congruence with stratigraphic data. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 9:398-407.
7. BOWE, L. M., G. COAT, AND C. W. DEPAMPHILIS. 2000. Phylogeny of seed plants based on all three genomic compartments: Extant gymnosperms are monophyletic and Gnetales' closest relatives are conifers. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 97:4092-4097.
8. BREMER, B., R. K. JANSEN, B. OXELMAN, M. BACKLAND, H. LANTZ, AND K.-J. KIM. 1999. More characters or more taxa for a robust phylogeny - Case study from the coffee family (Rubiaceae). Syst. Biol. 48:413-435.
9. BROWER, A. V. Z., AND V. SCHAWAROCH. 1996. Three steps of homology assessment. Cladistics 12:265-275.
10. BRYANT, H. N. 1989. An evaluation of cladistic and character analysis as hypothetico-deductive procedures, and the consequences for character weighting. Syst. Zool. 38:214-227.
11. CARINE, M. A., AND R. W. SCOTLAND. 1998. Pollen morphology of Strobilanthes Blume (Acanthaceae) from southern India and Sri Lanka. Rev. Paleobot. Palynol.103:143-165.
12. CARINE, M. A., AND R. W. SCOTLAND. 1999. Taxic and transformational homology: Different ways of seeing. Cladistics 15:121-129.
13. CARINE, M. A., AND R. W. SCOTLAND. 2000. The taxonomy and biology of Stenosiphonium Nees (Acanthaceae). Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 133:101-128.
14. CARINE, M. A., AND R. W. SCOTLAND. 2002. Classification of the Strobilanthinae (Acanthaceae): Trying to classify the unclassifiable? Taxon 51:259-279.
15. CHARLESTON, M. A., M. D. HENDY, AND D. PENNY. 1994. The effects of sequence length, tree topology, and number of taxa on the performance of phylogenetic methods. J. Comp. Biol. 1:133-151.
16. CHAW, S.-M., C. L. PARKINSON, Y. CHENG, T. M. VINCENT, AND J. D. PALMER. 2000. Seed plant phylogeny inferred from all three genomes: Monophyly of extant gymnosperms and origin of Gnetales and conifers. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 97:4086-4091.
17. CRANE, P. R. 1985. Phylogenetic analysis of seed plants and the origin of angiosperms. Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard. 72:716-793.
18. CUMMINGS, M. P., S. P. OTTO, AND J. WAKELY. 1995. Sampling properties of DNA sequence data in phylogenetic analysis. Mol. Biol. Evol. 12:814-822.
19. DE PINNA, M. C. C. 1991. Concepts and tests of homology in the cladistic paradigm. Cladistics 7:317-338.
20. DONOGHUE, M. J., J. A. DOYLE, J. GAUTHIER, A. G. KLUGE, AND T. ROWE. 1989. The importance of fossils in phylogeny reconstruction. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 20:431-460.
21. DONOGHUE, M. J., AND M. J. SANDERSON. 1992. The suitability of molecular and morphological evidence in reconstructing plant phylogeny. Pages 340-368 in Molecular systematics of plants (P. S. Soltis, D. E. Soltis, and J. J. Doyle, eds.). Chapman and Hall, New York.
22. DOYLE, J. A. 1996. Seed plant phylogeny and the relationships of Gnetales. Int. J. Plant Sci. 157(suppl.):S3-S39.
23. DOYLE, J. A. 1998. Molecules, morphology, fossils, and the relationship of angiosperms and Gnetales. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 9:448-462.
24. DOYLE, J. A., AND M. J. DONOGHUE. 1986. Seed plant phylogeny and the origin of angiosperms: An experimental cladistic approach. Bot. Rev. 52:321-431.
25. DOYLE, J. A., AND M. J. DONOGHUE. 1987. The importance of fossils in elucidating seed plant phylogeny and macroevolution. Rev. Paleobot. Palynol. 50:63-95.
26. DOYLE, J. A., AND M. J. DONOGHUE. 1992. Fossils and seed plant phylogeny reanalyzed. Brittonia 44:89-106.
27. DOYLE, J. A., AND P. K. ENDRESS. 2000. Morphological phylogenetic analysis of basal angiosperms: Comparison and combination with molecular data. Int. J. Plant Sci. 161(suppl.):S121-S153.
28. FARRIS, J. S. 1973. A probability model for inferring evolutionary trees. Syst. Zool. 22:250-256.
29. FELSENSTEIN, J. 1978. Cases in which parsimony or compatibility methods will be positively misleading. Syst. Zool. 27:401-410.
30. FELSENSTEIN, J. 1981. Evolutionary trees from DNA sequences: A maximum likelihood approach. J. Mol. Evol. 17:368-376.
31. FELSENSTEIN, J. 1985. Confidence limits on phylogenies: An approach using the bootstrap. Evolution 39:783-791.
32. FOREY, P. L., AND I. J. KITCHING. 2000. Experiments in coding multistate characters. Pages 54-80 in Homology and systematics: Coding characters for phylogenetic analysis (R. W. Scotland and R. T. Pennington, eds.). Taylor and Francis, London.
33. GAUTHIER, J., D. CANNATELLA, K. DE QUEIROZ, A. G. KLUGE, AND T. ROWE. 1989. Tetrapod phylogeny. Pages 337-353 in The hierarchy of life (B. Fernholm, K. Bremer, and H. Jornvall, eds.). Elsevier, Amsterdam.
34. GAUTHIER, J., A. KLUGE, AND T. ROWE. 1988. Amniote phylogeny and the importance of fossils. Cladistics 4:105-209.
35. GIFT, N., AND P. F. STEVENS. 1997. Vagaries in the delimitation of character states in quantitative variation: An experimental study. Syst. Biol. 46:112-125.
36. GIVNISH, T. J., AND K. J. SYTSMA. 1997a. Consistency, characters, and the likelihood of correct phylogenetic inference. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 7:320-330.
37. GIVNISH, T. J., AND K. J. SYTSMA. 1997b. Homoplasy in molecular vs. morphological data: The likelihood of correct phylogenetic inference. Pages 55-101 in Molecular evolution and adaptive radiation (T. J. Givnish and K. J. Sytsma, eds.). Cambridge Univ. Press, New York.
38. GOLDMAN, N. 1998. Effects of sequence alignment procedures on estimates of phylogeny. BioEssays 20:287-290.
39. GRAHAM, S. W., AND R. G. OLMSTEAD. 2000. Utility of 17 chloroplast genes for inferring the phylogeny of the basal angiosperms. Am. J. Bot. 87:1712-1730.
40. GRAYBEAL, A. 1998. Is it better to add taxa or characters to a difficult phylogenetic problem? Syst. Biol. 48:9-17.
41. HASEGAWA, M., H. KISHINO, AND T. YANO. 1985. Dating of the human-ape splitting by a molecular clock of mitochondrial DNA. J. Mol. Evol. 22:160-174.
42. HAWKINS, J. A. 2000. A survey of primary homology assessment: Different workers perceive and define characters in different ways. Pages 22-53 in Homology and systematics: Coding characters for phylogenetic analysis (R. W. Scotland and R. T. Pennington, eds.). Taylor and Francis, London.
43. HAWKINS, J. A., C. E. HUGHES, AND R. W. SCOTLAND. 1997. Primary homology assessment, characters and character states. Cladistics 13:275-283.
44. HEDGES, S. B. 1992. The number of replications needed for accurate bootstrap P value in phylogenetic studies. Mol. Biol. Evol. 9:366-369.
45. HEDGES, S. B., AND L. R. MAXON. 1996. Molecules and morphology in amniote phylogeny. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 6:312-314.
46. HENNIG, W. 1966. Phylogenetic systematics. Univ. Illinois Press, Urbana.
47. HICKSON, R. E., C. SIMON, AND S. W. PERREY. 2000. An evaluation of multiple sequence alignment programs using an rRNA data set. Mol. Biol. Evol. 17:530-539.
48. HILLIS, D. M. 1987. Molecular versus morphological approaches to systematics. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 18:23-42.
49. HILLIS, D. M. 1996. Inferring complex phylogenies. Nature 383:140-141.
50. HILLIS, D. M. 1998. Taxonomic sampling, phylogenetic accuracy, and investigator bias. Syst. Biol. 47:3-8.
51. HILLIS, D. M., AND J. J. BULL. 1993. An empirical test of bootstrapping as a method for assessing confidence in phylogenetic analysis. Syst. Biol. 42:182-192.
52. HILLIS, D. M., J. P. HUELSENBECK, AND C. W. CUNNINGHAM. 1994a. Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies. Science 264:671-677.
53. HILLIS, D. M., J. P. HUELSENBECK, AND D. L. SWOFFORD. 1994b. Hobgoblin of phylogenetics? Nature 369:363-364.
54. HILLIS, D. M., D. D. POLLOCK, J. A. MCGUIRE, AND D. J. ZWICKL. 2003. Is sparse taxon sampling a problem for phylogenetic inference? Syst. Biol. 52:124-126.
55. HILLIS, D. M., AND J. J. WIENS. 2000. Molecules versus morphology in systematics. Pages 1-19 in Phylogenetic analysis of morphological data (J. J. Wiens, ed.). Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
56. HUELSENBECK, J. P. 1991. When are fossils better than extant taxa in phylogenetic analysis? Syst. Zool. 40:458-469.
57. HUELSENBECK, J. P., AND D. M. HILLIS. 1993. Success of phylogenetic methods in the four-taxon case. Syst. Biol. 42:247-264.
58. HUMPHRIES, C. J., AND J. A. CHAPPILL. 1988. Systematics as science: A response to Cronquist. Bot. Rev. 54:129-144.
59. JARDINE, N. 1969. The observational and theoretical components of homology: A study based on the morphology of the dermal skull-roofs of rhipidistian fishes. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 1:327-361.
60. JUKES, T. H., AND C. R. CANTOR. 1969. Evolution of protein molecules. Pages 21-132 in Mammalian protein metabolism (H. M. Munro, ed.). Academic Press, New York.
61. KELLOGG, E. A. 2000. The grasses: A case study in macroevolution. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 31:217-238.
62. KIM, J. 1996. General inconsistency conditions for maximum parsimony: Effects of branch lengths and increasing numbers of taxa. Syst. Biol. 45:363-374.
63. KIM, J., AND M. A. BURGMAN. 1988. Accuracy of phylogenetic estimation methods under unequal evolutionary rates. Evolution 42:596-602.
64. KIMURA, M. 1980. A simple method for estimating evolutionary rate of base substitutions through comparative studies of nucleotide sequences. J. Mol. Evol. 16:111-120.
65. KISHINO, H., AND M. HASEGAWA. 1989. Evaluation of the maximum likelihood estimate of the evolutionary tree topologies from DNA sequence data, and the branching order of the Hominoidea. J. Mol. Evol. 29:170-179.
66. KLUGE, A. G., AND A. J. WOLFE. 1993. Cladistics: What's in a word? Cladistics 9:183-199.
67. LAMBOY, W. F. 1994. The accuracy of the maximum parsimony method for phylogeny reconstruction with morphological characters. Syst. Bot. 19:489-505.
68. LECOINTRE, G., H. PHILIPPE, H. L. V. LÊ, AND H. LE GUYADER. 1993. Species sampling has a major impact on phylogenetic inference. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2:205-224.
69. LEE, D. C., AND H. N. BRYANT. 1999. A reconsideration of the coding of inapplicable characters: Assumptions and problems. Cladistics 15:373-378.
70. LEWIS, P. O. 2001. A likelihood approach to inferring phylogeny from discrete morphological characters. Syst. Biol. 50:913-925.
71. LOCONTE, H., AND D. W. STEVENSON. 1990. Cladistics of the spermatophyta. Brittonia 42:197-211.
72. MADDISON, W. P. 1993. Missing data versus missing characters in phylogenetic analysis. Syst. Biol. 42:576-581.
73. MATHEWS, S., AND M. J. DONOGHUE. 1999. The root of angiosperm phylogeny inferred from duplicate phytochrome genes. Science 282:947-950.
74. MINDELL, D. P. 1991. Aligning DNA sequences: Homology and phylogenetic weighting. Pages 73-89 in Phylogenetic analysis of DNA sequences (M. M. Miyamoto and J. Cracraft, eds.). Oxford Univ. Press, New York.
75. MIRAMONTES, P., L. MEDRANO, C. CERPA, R. CEDERGREN, G. FERBEYRE, AND G. COCHO. 1995. Structural and thermodynamic properties of DNA uncover different evolutionary histories. J. Mol. Evol. 40:698-704.
76. MIYAMOTO, M. M., AND W. M. FITCH. 1995. Testing species phylogenies and phylogenetic methods with congruence. Syst. Biol. 44:64-76.
77. MOYLAN, E. C., R. P. PENNINGTON, AND R. W. SCOTLAND. 2002. Taxonomic account of Hemigraphis Nees (Strobilanthinae Acanthaceae) from the Philipines. Kew Bull. 57:769-825.
78. NANDI, O. I., M. W. CHASE, AND P. K. ENDRESS. 1998. A combined cladistic analysis of angiosperms using rbcL and non-molecular data sets. Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard. 85:137-212.
79. NAYLOR, G. J. P., AND W. M. BROWN. 1998. Amphioxus mitochondrial DNA, chordate phylogeny, and the limits of inference based on comparisons of sequences. Syst. Biol. 47:61-76.
80. NEI, M., F. TAJIMA, AND Y. TATENO. 1983. Accuracy of estimated phylogenetic trees from molecular data. II. Gene frequency data. J. Mol. Evol. 19:153-170.
81. NELSON, G. J. 1994. Homology and systematics. Pages 101-149 in Homology: The hierarchical basis of comparative biology (B. K. Hall, ed.). Academic Press, San Diego.
82. NELSON, G. J. 1996. Nullius in verba. J. Comp. Biol. 1:141-152.
83. NIXON, K. C., W. L. CREPET, D. STEVENSON, AND E. M. FRIIS. 1994. A re-evaluation of seed plant phylogeny. Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard. 81:484-533.
84. OLMSTEAD, R. G. 1989. Phylogeny, phenotypic evolution, and biogeography of the Scutellaria angustifolia complex: Inferences from morphological and molecular data. Syst. Bot. 14:320-338.
85. PATTERSON, C. 1981. Significance of fossils in determining evolutionary relationships. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 12:195-223.
86. PATTERSON, C. 1982. Morphological characters and homology. Pages 21-74 in Problems in phylogenetic reconstruction (K. A. Joysey and A. E. Friday, eds.). Academic Press, London.
87. PATTERSON, C., AND G. D. JOHNSON. 1997. The data, the matrix, and the message: Comment on Begle's "Relationships of the osmeroid fishes." Syst. Biol. 46:358-365.
88. PATTERSON, C., D. M. WILLIAMS, AND C. J. HUMPHRIES. 1993. Congruence between molecular and morphological phylogenies. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 24:153-188.
89. PIMENTAL, R. A., AND R. RIGGINS. 1987. The nature of cladistic data. Cladistics 3:275-289.
90. PLATNICK, N. I. 1979. Philosophy and the transformation of cladistics. Syst. Zool. 28:537-546.
91. PLEIJEL, F. 1995. On character coding for phylogeny reconstruction. Cladistics 11:309-315.
92. POE, S. 1998. Sensitivity of phylogeny estimation to taxonomic sampling. Syst. Biol 47:18-31.
93. POE, S., AND J. J. WIENS. 2000. Character selection and the methodology of morphological phylogenetics. Pages 20-36 in Phylogenetic analysis of morphological data (J. J. Wiens, ed.). Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
94. POGUE, M. G., AND M. F. MICKEVICH. 1990. Character definitions and character state delineation: The bête noir of phylogenetic inference. Cladistics 6:319-361.
95. POSADA, D., AND K. A. CRANDALL. 2001. Selecting models of nucleotide substitution: An application to human immunodeficiency virus 1 (HIV-1). Mol. Biol. Evol. 18:897-906.
96. QUI, Y.-L., J. LEE, F. BERNASCONI-QUADRONI, D. E. SOLTIS, P. S. SOLTIS, M. ZANER, E. A. ZIMMER, Z. CHEN, V. SAVOLAINEN, AND M. W. CHASE. 1999. The earliest angiosperms. Nature 402:404-407.
97. REMANE, A. 1952. Die Grundlagen des naturlichen Systems der vergleichenden Anatomie und der Phylogenetik. Geest and Portig, Leipzig.
98. RIEPPEL, O. 1988. Fundamentals of comparative biology: Birkhäuser, Basel.
99. RODRÍGUEZ, F., J. F. OLIVER, A. MARÍN, AND J. R. MEDINA. 1990. The general stochastic model of nucleotide substitution. J. Theor. Biol. 142:485-501.
100. ROHLF, F. J., AND M. C. WOOTEN. 1988. Evaluation of the restricted maximum-likelihood method for estimating phylogenetic trees using simulated allele frequency data. Evolution 42:581-595.
101. ROSENBERG, M. S., AND S. KUMAR. 2001. Incomplete taxon sampling is not a problem for phylogenetic inference. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 98:10751-10756.
102. SANDERSON, M. J. 1995. Objections to bootstrapping phylogenies: A critique. Syst. Biol. 44:299-320.
103. SANDERSON, M. J., AND M. J. DONOGHUE. 1989. Patterns of variation and levels of homoplasy. Evolution 43:1781-1795.
104. SCOTLAND, R. W., AND R. T. PENNINGTON. 2000. Homology and systematics. Taylor and Francis, London.
105. SCOTLAND, R. W., AND K. VOLLESEN. 2000. Classification of Acanthaceae. Kew Bull. 55:513-589.
106. SIMMONS, M. P., AND H. OCHOTERENA. 2000. Gaps as characters in sequence-based phylogenetic analyses. Syst. Biol. 49:369-381.
107. SMITH, A. B. 1994. Systematics and the fossil record: Documenting evolutionary patterns. Blackwell Scientific, Oxford, U.K.
108. SMITH, A. B. 1998. What does palaeontology contribute to systematics in a molecular world? Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 9:437-447.
109. SOLTIS, P. S., D. E. SOLTIS, AND M. W. CHASE. 1999. Angiosperm phylogeny. Nature 402:402-404.
110. STEEL, M., AND D. PENNY. 2000. Parsimony, likelihood, and the role of models in molecular phylogenetics. Mol. Biol. Evol. 42:308-312.
111. STEVENS, P. F. 1991. Character states, morphological variation, and phylogenetic analysis: A review. Syst. Bot. 16:553-583.
112. STRONG, E. E., AND D. LIPSCOMB. 1999. Character coding and inapplicable data. Cladistics 15:363-371.
113. SWOFFORD, D. L., G. J. OLSEN, P. J. WADDELL, AND D. M. HILLIS. 1996. Phylogenetic inference. Pages 407-514 in Molecular systematics, 2nd edition (D. M. Hillis, C. Moritz, and B. K. Mable, eds.). Sinauer, Sunderland, Massachusetts.
114. SYTSMA, K. J. 1990. DNA and morphology: Inference of plant phylogeny. Trends Ecol. Evol. 5:104-110.
115. THIELE, K. 1993. The holy grail of the perfect character: The cladistic treatment of morphometric data. Cladistics 9:275-304.
116. WAGNER, G. P. 2001. The character concept in evolutionary biology. Academic Press, San Diego.
117. WIENS, J. J. 2000. Preface. Pages ix-x in Phylogenetic analysis of morphological data (J. J. Wiens, ed.). Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
118. WIENS, J. J., AND D. M. HILLIS. 1996. Accuracy of parsimony analysis using morphological data: A reappriasal. Syst. Bot. 21:237-243.
119. WILKINSON, M. 1995. A comparison of two methods of character construction. Cladistics 11:297-308.
120. WOOD, J. R. I., J. R. BENNETT, AND R. W. SCOTLAND. 2003. Notes on Strobilanthes: The Sympagis group. Kew Bull. 58:131-173.
121. WOOD, J. R. I., AND R. W. SCOTLAND. 2003. The two-lipped species of Strobilanthes (Acanthaceae). Kew Bull. 58:83-129.
122. YANG, Z. 1993. Maximum likelihood estimation of phylogeny from DNA sequences when substitution rates differ over sites. Mol. Biol. Evol. 10:1396-1401.
123. YANG, Z. 1996. Among-site rate variation and its impact on phylogenetic analysis. Trends Ecol. Evol. 11:367-372.
124. YANG, Z., N. GOLDMAN, AND A. E. FRIDAY. 1994. Comparison of models of nucleotide substitution used in maximum likelihood phylogenetic estimation. Mol. Biol. Evol. 11:316-324.