The Suitability of Molecular and Morphological Evidence in Reconstructing Plant Phylogeny

Abstract

Renewed interest in phylogenies over the last few decades coincides with a growing sense that it will actually be possible to obtain an accurate picture of evolutionary history. Indeed, the prospects of retrieving phylogeny now seem better than ever, owing to basic theoretical advance (due mainly to Hennig, 1966), the availability of computer programs that can handle large data sets, and the accessibility of new sources of evidence, especially molecular characters.It is our impression that methods of phylogenetic inference-their assumption and reliability-have received more attention than the data upon which phylogenies are based. However, the rapidly increasing use of molecular techniques has focused attention on the pros and cons of molecular versus morphological evidence. Hillis (1987) and Patterson (1987) have reviewed the main arguments, and a summary of results for a number of major groups is available in the proceedings of the recent Nobel symposium (Fernholm et al., 1989). Regarding plant phylogeny in particular, only Sytsma (1990) has attempted a general survey and comparison of molecular and morphological studies. However, reviews of the use of particular molecules (e.g., Palmer et al., 1988, on chloroplast DNA) include useful discussion of molecular versus morphological results, and comparisons have been made within several angiosperm families (e.g., see in this volume, Chapter 10 by Doyle et al. on Fabaceae, Chapter 11 by Jansen et al. on Asteraceae, and Chapter 13 by Sytsma and Smith on Onagraceae).This chapter is not a general review. Few generalizations seem possible at present, because there are too few careful morphological and molecular cladisticWe are grateful to all those who generously shared their unpublished research and/or commented on the manuscript:

Phylogeny Reconstruction: The Role of Morphology

“…Although the extent of congruence between morphological and molecular phylogenetic analyses has not been quantified, some researchers anticipated a high level of congruence between molecules and morphology (e.g., Hillis, 1987;Sanderson and Donoghue, 1989;Sytsma, 1990;Donoghue and Sanderson, 1992;Hillis and Wiens, 2000), whereas others were less optimistic or sceptical (e.g., Patterson et al, 1993;Lamboy, 1994;Hedges and Maxon,1996;Sytsma, 1997a, 1997b;Baker et al, 1998). We suspect that the optimism of congruence between morphology and molecules in plants is well placed simply because many taxa long recognized on the basis of morphology have been supported using molecular data and that this is widely appreciated (Hillis, 1987;Sanderson and Donoghue 1989;Sytsma, 1990;Donoghue and Sanderson, 1992;Patterson et al, 1993;Hillis and Wiens, 2000).…”

“…We suspect that the optimism of congruence between morphology and molecules in plants is well placed simply because many taxa long recognized on the basis of morphology have been supported using molecular data and that this is widely appreciated (Hillis, 1987;Sanderson and Donoghue 1989;Sytsma, 1990;Donoghue and Sanderson, 1992;Patterson et al, 1993;Hillis and Wiens, 2000). Less clear is the extent to which phylogenetic analyses of morphological data have increased our understanding of phylogeny.…”

Genetic Diversity of Bulgarian Phaseolus vulgaris L. Germplasm Collection Through Phaseolin and Isozyme Markers

“…Regarding the choice of marker used (morphological and/or molecular), there are ongoing disputes (Hills, 1987;Moritz et al, 1990;Donoghue et al, 1992;CIAT Report Information, 1990b). …”

Changing views of flower evolution and new questions

“…Of course, if morphological characters are used for phylogenetic studies, this also means the necessity of repeated reciprocal illumination (see also Kelly and Stevenson, 2005 ). 'Tree-thinking' has been encouraged in evolutionary studies (O'Hara, 1988 ;Donoghue and Sanderson, 1992 ). Th is is of course also relevant for the focus on structural features, including the construction of morphological matrices for phylogenetic studies.…”