Estimation of hominoid phylogeny from a DNA hybridization data set
- 58 Downloads
Analysis of the expanded data set of Sibley and Ahlquist (1987) on primate phylogeny using a maximum likelihood mixed model analysis of variance method shows that there is significant evidence for resolving theHomo-Pan-Gorilla trifurcation in favor of aHomo-Pan clade. The resulting tree is close to that estimated by Sibley and Ahlquist (1984). The mixed model can be used to test a number of hypotheses about the existence of components of variance and the linearity of the relationship between branch length and expected distance. No evidence is found that there is a variance component for extract, or for the individual from which the extract was taken. A variance component for experiment does seem to exist, presumably arising as a result of error of measurement of the common standard from which all values in the same experiment were substracted. There is significant evidence that the relationship between total branch length between species and their expected distances is nonlinear, or else that the measurement error on larger distances is greater than on smaller ones. Allowing for the nonlinearity might cause one to infer the time of distant common ancestors as less remote than the measured hybridization values would imply if used directly.
Key wordsDNA hybridization Phylogeny Hominoids Statistical analysis Maximum like-lihood Mixed model ANOVA
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Dempster AP, Laird MN, Rubin DB (1977) Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm. J Roy Statist Soc B 39:1–38Google Scholar
- Farris JS (1981) Distance data in phylogenetic analysis. In: Funk VA, Brooks DR (eds) Advances in cladistics. Proceedings of the first meeting of the Willi Hennig Society. New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, pp 3–23Google Scholar
- Farris JS (1985) Distance data revisited. Cladistics 1:67–85Google Scholar
- Farris JS (1986) Distances and statistics. Cladistics 2:144–157Google Scholar
- Felsenstein J (1983) Statistical inference of phylogenies. J Roy Statist Soc A 146:246–272Google Scholar
- Felsenstein J (1984) Distance methods for inferring phylogenies: a justification. Evolution 38:16–24Google Scholar
- Felsenstein J (1986) Distance methods: reply to Farris. Cladistics 2:130–143Google Scholar
- Jukes TH, Cantor CH (1969) Evolution of protein molecules. In: Munro HM (ed) Mammalian protein metabolism. Academic Press, New York, pp 21–123Google Scholar
- Templeton AR (1983) Phylogenetic inference from restriction endonuclease cleavage site maps with particular reference to the evolution of humans and the apes. Evolution 37:221–244Google Scholar