Congruence of morphologically-defined genera with molecular phylogenies

Jablonski, David; Finarelli, John A.

doi:10.1073/pnas.0902973106

Cited by 73 publications

(60 citation statements)

References 66 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Morphologically defined bivalve genera have been shown to be highly correlated with molecularly defined units, and robustly capture macroecological variables such as geographical range size [40]. With respect to birds, the taxonomic ranks of both species and genera are clearly defined under IOC classifications [37], based upon both genetic and morphological characters.…”

Section: (C) Comparability Of Generamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A taxonomic issue that could potentially bias this result would be if broad-ranging tropical bivalve species represent allopatric cryptic species. Although meta-analyses are not yet available, many genetically identified species prove to be morphologically separable on close examination, implying that modern morphology-based studies tend to capture most biological species [40,41]. Furthermore, cryptic species that have been discovered are not exclusively allopatric, and may be partially or fully nested within the geographical ranges of related species, even in the tropics [42,43].…”

Section: (C) Comparability Of Generamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Classifications of bivalve species and genera are based on a combination of recent phylogenetic studies and traditional morphological approaches [40,41]. Morphologically defined bivalve genera have been shown to be highly correlated with molecularly defined units, and robustly capture macroecological variables such as geographical range size [40].…”

Section: (C) Comparability Of Generamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Unifying latitudinal gradients in range size and richness across marine and terrestrial systems

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many marine and terrestrial clades show similar latitudinal gradients in species richness, but opposite gradients in range size-on land, ranges are the smallest in the tropics, whereas in the sea, ranges are the largest in the tropics. Therefore, richness gradients in marine and terrestrial systems do not arise from a shared latitudinal arrangement of species range sizes. Comparing terrestrial birds and marine bivalves, we find that gradients in range size are concordant at the level of genera. Here, both groups show a nested pattern in which narrow-ranging genera are confined to the tropics and broad-ranging genera extend across much of the gradient. We find that (i) genus range size and its variation with latitude is closely associated with per-genus species richness and (ii) broad-ranging genera contain more species both within and outside of the tropics when compared with tropical-or temperate-only genera. Within-genus species diversification thus promotes genus expansion to novel latitudes. Despite underlying differences in the species range-size gradients, species-rich genera are more likely to produce a descendant that extends its range relative to the ancestor's range. These results unify species richness gradients with those of genera, implying that birds and bivalves share similar latitudinal dynamics in net species diversification.

show abstract

Section: (C) Comparability Of Generamentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: (C) Comparability Of Generamentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: (C) Comparability Of Generamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Unifying latitudinal gradients in range size and richness across marine and terrestrial systems

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…

…”

mentioning

(Expert classified)

Reply to Smith and O'Meara: The utility of morphogenera

Jablonski¹,

Finarelli²

2009

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We do not disagree with Smith and O'Meara's points (1), which do not affect our results (2). P values must be viewed with caution when the x variable is a subset of the y variable, and we could have noted this point more prominently in our paper. From a purely pragmatic standpoint, however, most analyses employing morphogenera (e.g., analyzing fossil taxa) will lack prior knowledge of their phyletic status with respect to molecular cladograms. Therefore, the key consideration is the amount of variance explained by genera of unknown status compared to known monophyletic taxa. Furthermore, their analysis of mammalian body masses (1) suggests we should exclusively expect significant correlations, but when we re-create their analyses with the same body-mass data, varying the number of additional species required to create monophyletic groups across a realistic range, a substantial number of replicates yield insignificant P values (Table 1). Thus, significant correlations are not a foregone conclusion.This approach can also assess morphogenera as specieslevel proxies, although this issue was quite secondary to our main focus. Selecting body masses randomly from all Mammalia, we created 23 paraphyletic genera (as in ref . 2), assigning 13 congeneric species and a single outgroup responsible for the paraphyly (as in Cercopithecus), and 22 polyphyletic genera (2) with 16 congeners and 2 outgroups (as in Gazella). This configuration of congeners and outgroups represents a conservative assessment because many morphogenera had more outgroup taxa and therefore a greater ability to alter median mass. The reported Spearman rank correlation for the mammalian body masses (2) was higher than all 10,000 replicates (Fig. 1).With respect to phylogenetic correction at the genus level, we explicitly cautioned that the robustness of morphogenera as species proxies may not hold for all variables. However, consider encephalization in the mammalian order Carnivora, where data are readily available. Phylogenetically corrected ordinary leastsquares (OLS) regressions for ln brain volume on ln body mass are statistically indistinguishable between species-and genuslevel analyses (Table 2; for comparative purposes, we use their cited phylogeny, adding brain and body data from ref. 3). Our intention was to encourage such cross-level tests, particularly for features that might be preserved in fossil taxa, although we do note that genus-level data are often interesting in themselves, not just as proxies for species (4).We were surprised that Smith and O'Meara mistook agnosticism for apostasy on the point of phylogenetic comparative methods. We agree that phylogeny should be taken into account whenever possible (e.g., ref. 5), indeed our analysis of encephalization supports that view (compare corrected and uncorrected genus-level values in Table 2). Species-level molecular phylogenies are the most desirable framework for macroevolutionary analyses, but this situation will never obtain for all but a handful of the extinct 99% of species that have l...

show abstract

“…Feduccia (2013) asserts that DNA-based data often reject morphological hypotheses (e.g., supposed morphological support for a loon-grebe clade) but ignores the fact that most analyses of morphology and molecules produce congruent results (e.g., Omland 1994, Jablonski andFinarelli 2009). For example, on the basis of morphological data, consensus was reached regarding the monophyly and relative placement of many major avian subclades (e.g., Paleognathae, Neognathae, Galloanseres, and Neoaves and regarding the well-nested position of passerines; reviewed in Mayr and Clarke 2003).…”

Section: Theoretical and Methodological Misunderstandingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rhetoric vs. reality: A commentary on “Bird Origins Anew” by A. Feduccia

Smith

Chiappe

Clarke

et al. 2015

The Auk

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Birds are maniraptoran theropod dinosaurs. The evidence supporting the systematic position of Avialae as a derived clade within Dinosauria is voluminous and derived from multiple independent lines of evidence. In contrast, a paucity of selectively chosen data weakly support, at best, alternative proposals regarding the origin of birds and feathers. Opponents of the theory that birds are dinosaurs have frequently based their criticisms on unorthodox interpretations of paleontological data and misrepresentation of phylogenetic systematic methods. Moreover, arguments against the nested position of Avialae in Dinosauria have often conflated the logically distinct questions of avian origins, the evolution of flight, and the phylogenetic distribution of feathers. Motivated by a Perspectives article with numerous factual inaccuracies that recently appeared in The Auk, we provide a review of the full complement of facts pertaining to the avian origins debate and address the misplaced criticisms raised in that opinion paper. Keywords: evolution of flight, evolution of feathers, evolution of birds, Avialae, maniraptoran theropod dinosaurs, phylogenetic systematics Retórica vs. Realidad: Un comentario sobre ''Bird Origins Anew'' por A. Feduccia, Auk 130:1-12 RESUMEN Las aves son dinosaurios terópodos maniraptores. La evidencia que sustenta la posición sistemática de Avialae como un clado derivado dentro de Dinosauria es voluminosa y se deriva de múltiples líneas independientes de evidencia. En contraste, sólo escasos datos elegidos selectivamente sustentan débilmente propuestas alternativas sobre el origen de las aves y las plumas. Los opositores de la teoría de que las aves son dinosaurios frecuentemente han basado sus críticas en interpretaciones no ortodoxas de los datos paleontológicos y en la tergiversación de los métodos de la sistemática filogenética. Además, los argumentos en contra de la posición anidada de Avialae dentro de Dinosauria han confundido la distinción lógica de las preguntas sobre los orígenes de las aves, la evolución del vuelo y la distribución filogenética de las plumas. Motivados por un artículo de Perspectivas que apareció recientemente en The Auk con numerosas imprecisiones fácticas, presentamos una revisión del conjunto completo de hechos relacionados con el debate sobre el origen de la aves y abordamos las críticas equivocadas que se presentan en dicho artículo de opinión. Palabras clave: Avialae, dinosaurios terópodos maniraptores, evolución de las aves, evolución de las plumas, evolución del vuelo, sistemática filogenética Q 2015 American Ornithologists' Union.

show abstract

Congruence of morphologically-defined genera with molecular phylogenies

Cited by 73 publications

References 66 publications

Unifying latitudinal gradients in range size and richness across marine and terrestrial systems

Unifying latitudinal gradients in range size and richness across marine and terrestrial systems

Reply to Smith and O'Meara: The utility of morphogenera

Rhetoric vs. reality: A commentary on “Bird Origins Anew” by A. Feduccia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About