Department of Biological Sciences, Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI, USA.
Bell Museum of Natural History, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, USA.
J Evol Biol. 2017 Jul;30(7):1429-1436. doi: 10.1111/jeb.13097. Epub 2017 May 18.
We published a phylogenetic comparative analysis that found geckos had gained and lost adhesive toepads multiple times over their long evolutionary history (Gamble et al., PLoS One, 7, 2012, e39429). This was consistent with decades of morphological studies showing geckos had evolved adhesive toepads on multiple occasions and that the morphology of geckos with ancestrally padless digits can be distinguished from secondarily padless forms. Recently, Harrington & Reeder (J. Evol. Biol., 30, 2017, 313) reanalysed data from Gamble et al. (PLoS One, 7, 2012, e39429) and found little support for the multiple origins hypothesis. Here, we argue that Harrington and Reeder failed to take morphological evidence into account when devising ancestral state reconstruction models and that these biologically unrealistic models led to erroneous conclusions about the evolution of adhesive toepads in geckos.
我们发表了一项系统发育比较分析，发现壁虎在其漫长的进化历史中多次获得和失去粘性足垫（Gamble 等人，PLoS One，7，2012，e39429）。这与几十年来的形态学研究一致，这些研究表明壁虎在多个场合进化出了粘性足垫，而且具有祖传无垫趾的壁虎的形态可以与次生无垫趾形式区分开来。最近，Harrington 和 Reeder（J. Evol. Biol.，30，2017，313）重新分析了 Gamble 等人的数据（PLoS One，7，2012，e39429），发现对多次起源假说几乎没有支持。在这里，我们认为 Harrington 和 Reeder 在设计祖先状态重建模型时没有考虑形态学证据，这些不符合生物学现实的模型导致了关于壁虎粘性足垫进化的错误结论。
