Strong morphological support for the molecular evolutionary tree of placental mammals

Abstract

The emerging molecular evolutionary tree for placental mammals differs greatly from morphological trees, leading to repeated suggestions that morphology is uninformative at this level. This view is here refuted empirically, using an extensive morphological and molecular dataset totalling 17 431 characters. When analysed alone, morphology indeed is highly misleading, contradicting nearly every clade in the preferred tree (obtained from the molecular or the combined data). Widespread homoplasy overrides historical signal. However, when added to the molecular data, morphology surprisingly increases support for most clades in the preferred tree. The homoplasy in the morphology is incongruent with all aspects of the molecular signal, while the historical signal in the morphology is congruent with (and amplifies) the historical signal in the molecular data. Thus, morphology remains relevant in the genomic age, providing vital independent corroboration of the molecular tree of mammals.

Seeing the Wood through the Trees: The Current State of Higher Systematics in the Strepsirhini

“…In our experience, using phylogenetically conserved morphological characters in combination with molecular data to anchor deep nodes in phylogeny reconstruction [Jenner, 2004;Lee and Camens, 2009] is not realistic using current analytical techniques. MP showed the greatest influence of morphology, but also yielded the least resolved tree ( fig.…”

Nuclear organization of cholinergic, putative catecholaminergic and serotonergic systems in the brains of two megachiropteran species

“…Following these manipulations, the treelength became 62, with a consistency index of 0.57, a retention index of 0.72, and a rescaled consistency index of 0.41. The final phylogeny tested is that proposed by Lee and Camens (2009), where the major differences were the same as that seen in Asher et al (2009). Following manipulation of the phylogenetic relation- L.-A.…”

“…(C) This tree is based on the phylogeny provided by Arnason et al (2002), again forcing bat monophyly and separating the insectivores and increases the number of substitutions to 60. (D) This tree is based on the phylogeny provided by Lee and Camens (2009), again forcing monophyly and increases the number of substitutions to 63. The phylogenetic analysis of the three neural systems investigated presents bat diphyly, with megachiropterans as a sister group to primates, as the most parsimonious phylogeny.…”

Nuclear organisation of some immunohistochemically identifiable neural systems in five species of insectivore —Crocidura cyanea, Crocidura olivieri, Sylvisorex ollula, Paraechinus aethiopicus and Atelerix frontalis

“…Many of the earlier phylogenies, based on morphology, assumed monophyly in the Insectivora, whereas molecular-based analyses conclude that this mammalian order is paraphyletic (Symonds, 2005). The paraphyletic insectivore grouping is now generally thought to belong to the Laurasiatheria super order, which is proposed to include, in addition to the insectivores, the Artiodactyls, Perissodactyls, Carnivores and the Chiropterans (Arnason et al, 2002;Asher et al, 2009;Lee and Camens, 2009;Meredith et al, 2011).…”