Gilbert Christopher C, Rossie James B
Interdepartmental Doctoral Program in Anthropological Sciences, Department of Anthropology, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY 11794, USA.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 Jul 17;104(29):11910-4. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0702174104. Epub 2007 Jul 9.
There are many cases of incongruence between phylogenetic hypotheses produced from morphological data and those produced from molecular data. In such instances, many researchers prefer to accept the results of molecular phylogenies. For example, in a recent analysis of primate phylogenies based on craniodental characters, Collard and Wood [Collard M, Wood BA (2000) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97:5003-5006] argued that, because craniodental data do not yield relationships concordant with molecular studies, the results of studies that employ such characters must be considered suspect. As most of our knowledge of mammalian evolution and phylogenetic history comes from craniodental fossils, these results have dramatic implications. However, the aforementioned analysis did not take into account the potentially confounding effects of allometry on quantitative craniodental characters. In this article, we employ a previously undescribed narrow allometric coding method that accounts for such confounding influences in phylogenetic analyses of craniodental morphology. By using essentially the same raw data set as Collard and Wood [Collard M, Wood BA (2000) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97:5003-5006], 65 quantitative craniodental characters were adjusted in a parsimony analysis for the primate tribe Papionini, a group of monkeys argued to display extensive homoplasy. The resulting phylogenetic tree was congruent with the phylogenetic tree based on molecular data for these species, thereby meeting the "criterion of congruence." These results suggest that morphological data, when treated properly, can be considered as reliable as molecular data in phylogenetic reconstruction. Rather than accepting phylogenetic hypotheses from one data source over another, cases of incongruence should be examined with greater scrutiny.
从形态学数据得出的系统发育假说与从分子数据得出的系统发育假说之间存在许多不一致的情况。在这种情况下，许多研究人员更倾向于接受分子系统发育的结果。例如，在最近一项基于颅骨牙齿特征的灵长类系统发育分析中，科拉德和伍德[科拉德M，伍德BA（2000年）《美国国家科学院院刊》97：5003 - 5006]认为，由于颅骨牙齿数据得出的关系与分子研究不一致，采用这些特征的研究结果必须被视为可疑。由于我们对哺乳动物进化和系统发育历史的大部分了解来自颅骨牙齿化石，这些结果具有重大影响。然而，上述分析没有考虑到异速生长对定量颅骨牙齿特征的潜在混杂影响。在本文中，我们采用了一种以前未描述的狭义异速生长编码方法，该方法在颅骨牙齿形态的系统发育分析中考虑了这种混杂影响。通过使用与科拉德和伍德[科拉德M，伍德BA（2000年）《美国国家科学院院刊》97：5003 - 5006]基本相同的原始数据集，对灵长类狒狒族的65个定量颅骨牙齿特征在简约分析中进行了调整，狒狒族是一群被认为表现出广泛同塑性的猴子。由此得到的系统发育树与基于这些物种分子数据的系统发育树一致，从而符合“一致性标准”。这些结果表明，形态学数据在经过适当处理后，在系统发育重建中可以被认为与分子数据一样可靠。对于不一致的情况，不应简单地接受来自一个数据源而非另一个数据源的系统发育假说，而应进行更仔细的审查。
