Benton M J
Department of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1RJ, UK.
Proc Biol Sci. 2001 Oct 22;268(1481):2123-30. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2001.1769.
Phylogenies, or evolutionary trees, are fundamental to biology. Systematists have laboured since the time of Darwin to discover the tree of life. Recent developments in systematics, such as cladistics and molecular sequencing, have led practitioners to believe that their phylogenies are more testable now than equivalent efforts from the 1960s or earlier. Whole trees, and nodes within trees, may be assessed for their robustness. However, these quantitative approaches cannot be used to demonstrate that one tree is more likely to be correct than another. Congruence assessments may help. Comparison of a sample of 1000 published trees with an essentially independent standard (dates of origin of groups in geological time) shows that the order of branching has improved slightly, but the disparity between estimated times of origination from phylogeny and stratigraphy has, if anything, become worse. Controlled comparisons of phylogenies of four major groups (Agnatha, Sarcopterygii, Sauria and Mammalia) do not show uniform improvement, or decline, of fit to stratigraphy through the twentieth century. Nor do morphological or molecular trees differ uniformly in their performance.
系统发育树,即进化树,是生物学的基础。自达尔文时代以来,分类学家们就一直在努力探寻生命之树。系统分类学的最新进展,如分支系统学和分子测序,使从业者们相信,他们构建的系统发育树如今比20世纪60年代或更早时期的同类成果更具可检验性。整个进化树以及树中的节点都可以评估其稳健性。然而,这些定量方法无法用来证明一棵树比另一棵树更有可能是正确的。一致性评估或许会有所帮助。将1000篇已发表的进化树样本与一个基本独立的标准(地质时期类群的起源时间)进行比较,结果表明分支顺序略有改善,但进化树估计的起源时间与地层学之间的差异,即便有变化,也变得更糟了。对四个主要类群(无颌纲、肉鳍鱼纲、蜥蜴亚目和哺乳纲)的系统发育树进行对照比较,结果并未显示在整个20世纪中,与地层学的契合度有一致的提高或下降。形态学或分子进化树在表现上也没有一致的差异。