Lockwood Charles A
Department of Anthropology, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, United Kingdom.
J Hum Evol. 2007 May;52(5):490-503. doi: 10.1016/j.jhevol.2006.11.013. Epub 2007 Feb 20.
In two areas of phylogenetics, contrary predictions have been developed and maintained for character analysis and weighting. With regard to adaptation, many have argued that adaptive characters are poorly suited to phylogenetic analysis because of a propensity for homoplasy, while others have argued that complex adaptive characters should be given high weight because homoplasy in complex characters is unlikely. Similarly, with regard to correlated sets of characters, one point of view is that such sets should be collapsed into a single character-a single piece of phylogenetic evidence. Another point of view is that a suite of correlated characters should be emphasized in phylogenetics, again because recurrence of detailed similarity in the same suite of features is unlikely. In this paper, I discuss the theoretical background of adaptation and functional integration with respect to phylogenetic systematics of primates. Several character examples are reviewed with regard to their functional morphology and phylogenetic signal: postorbital structures, tympanic morphology, fusion of the mandibular symphysis, the tooth comb, strepsirrhine talar morphology, and the prehensile tail. It is clear when considering characters such as these that some characters are synapomorphic of major clades and at the same time functionally important. This appears particularly to be the case when characters are integrated into a complex and maintained as stable configurations. Rather than being simply a problem in character analysis, processes of integration may help to explain the utility of phylogenetically informative characters. On the other hand, the character examples also highlight the difficulty in forming a priori predictions about a character's phylogenetic signal. Explanations of patterns of character evolution are often clade-specific, which does not allow for a simple framework of character selection and/or weighting.
在系统发育学的两个领域,针对性状分析和加权已经形成并维持了相反的预测。关于适应性,许多人认为适应性性状不太适合系统发育分析,因为它们有趋同进化的倾向,而另一些人则认为复杂的适应性性状应该被赋予较高权重,因为复杂性状中趋同进化的可能性不大。同样,关于相关性状集,一种观点认为这样的性状集应该合并为一个单一性状——一个单一的系统发育证据。另一种观点则认为,在系统发育学中应该强调一组相关性状,同样是因为同一组特征中详细相似性的重现不太可能。在本文中,我讨论了灵长类系统发育学中适应性和功能整合的理论背景。回顾了几个性状实例的功能形态和系统发育信号:眶后结构、鼓室形态、下颌联合的融合、齿梳、原猴类距骨形态和抓握尾。在考虑这样的性状时很明显,一些性状是主要类群的共衍征,同时在功能上也很重要。当性状整合为一个复合体并作为稳定构型维持时,情况似乎尤其如此。整合过程可能不仅仅是性状分析中的一个问题,它可能有助于解释系统发育信息性状的效用。另一方面,这些性状实例也凸显了对性状的系统发育信号进行先验预测的困难。性状进化模式的解释通常是特定类群的,这使得无法形成一个简单的性状选择和/或加权框架。