Journal of Mammalian Evolution

, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp 49–71 | Cite as

Phylogenetic Relationships Among Treeshrews (Scandentia): A Review and Critique of the Morphological Evidence

  • Link E. Olson
  • Eric J. Sargis
  • Robert D. Martin
Article

Abstract

Although the supraordinal relationships of Scandentia (treeshrews) have been studied in great detail from both morphological and molecular perspectives, the phylogenetic relationships among treeshrews have been largely ignored. Here we review several published studies of qualitative morphological variation among living treeshrews and their contribution to our understanding of intraordinal phylogenetic relationships. Reanalysis of the data from each of these studies demonstrates that none of the trees in the original publications represents the most parsimonious interpretation. In addition to performing new analyses, we argue that all such studies to date suffer from one or more fundamental shortcomings, notably the failure to include reference to nonscandentian outgroups and the a priori assumption of generic monophyly of the relatively speciose genus Tupaia. Parsimony analyses of these data sets fail to resolve either intergeneric or interspecific relationships. Finally, several inconsistencies and conflicts with respect to character coding both within and between published studies are discussed. We conclude that a more rigorous investigation of morphological character state variation is sorely needed, one that explicitly identifies voucher specimens and does not make any assumptions of generic monophyly. This is necessary not only for the purpose of resolving phylogenetic relationships, but also for inference of ancestral states in a group that continues to figure prominently in studies of placental mammal diversification.

morphology Scandentia systematics treeshrews Tupaiidae 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Anderson, J. (1879). Anatomical and Zoological Researches: Comprising an Account of the Zoological Results of the Two Expeditions to Western Yunnan in 1868 and 1875, Bernard Quaritch, London.Google Scholar
  2. Bloch, J. I., and Boyer, D. M. (2002). Grasping primate origins. Science 298: 1606-1610.Google Scholar
  3. Bremer, K. (1988). The limits of amino acid sequence data in angiosperm phylogenetic reconstruction. Evolution 42: 795-803.Google Scholar
  4. Butler, P. M. (1980). The tupaiid dentition. In: Comparative Biology and Evolutionary Relationships of Tree Shrews, W. P. Luckett, ed., pp. 171-204, Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  5. Campbell, C. B. G. (1974). On the phyletic relationships of the tree shrews. Mamm. Rev. 4: 125-143.Google Scholar
  6. Carlsson, A. (1922). Über die Tupaiidae und ihre Beziehungen zu den Insectivora und den Prosimiae. Acta Zool. 3: 227-270.Google Scholar
  7. Chapman, H. C. (1904). Observations on Tupaia with reflection on the origin of Primates. Proc. Acad. Natl. Sci. Phila. 56: 148-156.Google Scholar
  8. Chasen, F. N. (1940). A handlist of Malaysian mammals. Bull. Raffles Mus. Sing. 15: 1-209.Google Scholar
  9. Conisbee, L. R. (1953). A List of the Names Proposed for Genera and Subgenera of Recent Mammals, British Museum of Natural History, London.Google Scholar
  10. Corbet, G. B., and Hill, J. E. (1992). The Mammals of the Indomalayan Region: A Systematic Review, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  11. Davis, D. D. (1938). Notes on the anatomy of the tree shrew Dendrogale. Zool. Ser. Field Mus. Nat. Hist. 20: 383-404.Google Scholar
  12. Dene, H., Goodman, M., and Prychodko, W. (1978). An immunological examination of the systematics of Tupaioidea. J. Mammal. 59: 697-706.Google Scholar
  13. Dene, H., Goodman, M., Prychodko, W., and Matsuda, G. (1980). Molecular evidence for the affinities of Tupaiidae. In: Comparative Biology and Evolutionary Relationships of Tree Shrews, W. P. Luckett, ed., pp. 269-291, Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  14. Diard, P. M. (1820). Report of a meeting of the Asiatic Society for March 10. Asiat. J. Month. Reg. 10: 477-478.Google Scholar
  15. Ellerman, J. R., and Morrison-Scott, T. C. S. (1951). Checklist of Palaearctic and Indian Mammals, British Museum of Natural History, London.Google Scholar
  16. Emmons, L. H. (2000). Tupai: A Field Study of Bornean Treeshrews, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
  17. Felsenstein, J. (1985). Confidence limits on phylogenies: An approach using the bootstrap. Evolution 39: 783-791.Google Scholar
  18. Fiedler, W. (1956). Ubersicht über das System der Primates. Primatologia 1: 1-266.Google Scholar
  19. Flower, W. H. (1885). An Introduction to the Osteology of the Mammalia, Macmillan, London.Google Scholar
  20. Garrod, A. H. (1879). Notes on the visceral anatomy of the Tupaia of Burmah (Tupaia belangeri). Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond. 1879: 301-305.Google Scholar
  21. George, R. M. (1977). The limb musculature of the Tupaiidae. Primates 18: 1-34.Google Scholar
  22. Gould, E. (1978). The behavior of the moonrat, Echinosorex gymnurus (Erinaceidae) and the pentail tree shrew, Ptilocercus lowii (Tupaiidae) with comments on the behavior of other Insectivora. Z. Tierpsychol. 48: 1-27.Google Scholar
  23. Gray, J. E. (1825). An outline of an attempt at the disposition of Mammalia into tribes and families, with a list of the genera apparently appertaining to each tribe. Ann. Phil. 10: 337-343.Google Scholar
  24. Gray, J. E. (1848). Description of a new genus of insectivorous Mammalia, or Talpidae, from Borneo. Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond. 1848: 23-24.Google Scholar
  25. Gray, J. E. (1865). Notice of a species of Tupaia from Borneo in the collection of the British Museum. Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond. 1865: 322.Google Scholar
  26. Gregory, W. K. (1910). The orders of mammals. Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. 27: 1-524.Google Scholar
  27. Günther, A. (1876). Remarks on some Indian and more especially Bornean mammals. Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond. 1876: 424-428.Google Scholar
  28. Haeckel, E. (1866). Generelle Morphologie der Organismen, Georg Reimer, Berlin.Google Scholar
  29. Han, K.-H., Sheldon, F. H., and Stuebing, R. B. (2000). Interspecific relationships and biogeography of some Bornean tree shrews (Tupaiidae: Tupaia), based on DNA hybridization and morphometric comparisons. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 70: 1-14.Google Scholar
  30. Helgen, K. M. (in press). Order Scandentia. In: Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference, D. E. Wilson and D. M. Reeder, 3rd edn., Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  31. Hillis, D. M. (1987). Molecular versus morphological approaches to systematics. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 18: 23-42.Google Scholar
  32. Horsfield, T. (1824). Zoological Researches in Java and the Neighboring Islands, eds., Kingbury, Parbury & Allen, London.Google Scholar
  33. Le Gros Clark, W. E. (1926). On the anatomy of the pen-tailed tree shrew (Ptilocercus lowii). Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond. 1926: 1179-1309.Google Scholar
  34. Luckett, W. P. (1980). The suggested evolutionary relationships and classification of tree shrews. In: Comparative Biology and Evolutionary Relationships of Tree Shrews, W. P. Luckett, ed., pp. 3-31, Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  35. Lyon, M. W. (1913). Tree shrews: An account of the mammalian family Tupaiidae. Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus. 45: 1-188.Google Scholar
  36. MacPhee, R. D. E., ed. (1993). Primates and Their Relatives in Phylogenetic Perspective, Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  37. MacPhee, R. D. E., and Novacek, M. J. (1993). Definition and relationships of Lipotyphla. In: Mammal Phylogeny: Placentals, F. S. Szalay, M. J. Novacek, and M. C. McKenna, eds., pp. 13–31, Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
  38. Martin, R. D. (1968). Reproduction and ontogeny in tree shrews (Tupaia belangeri), with reference to their general behaviour and taxonomic relationships. Z. Tierpsychol. 25: 409-532.Google Scholar
  39. Martin, R. D. (1990). Primate Origins and Evolution, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
  40. Martin, R. D. (2001). Tree shrews. In: The New Encyclopedia of Mammals, D. W. Macdonald, ed., pp. 426-431, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  41. Matschie, P. (1898). Über Säugethiere von den Philippinen. Sitz-Ber. Ges. Nat. Freunde Berlin 1898: 38, 43.Google Scholar
  42. Mearns, E. A. (1905). Descriptions of new genera and species of mammals from the Philippine Islands. Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus. 28: 425-460.Google Scholar
  43. Miller, G. S. (1903). Seventy new Malayan mammals. Smithson. Misc. Coll. 45: 1-73.Google Scholar
  44. Murphy, W. J., Eizirik, E., O'Brien, S. J., Madsen, O., Scally, M., Douady, C. J., Teeling, E. C., Ryder, O. A., Stanhope, M. J., de Jong, W. W., and Springer, M. S. (2001). Resolution of the early placental mammal radiation using Bayesian phylogenetics. Science 294: 2348-2351.Google Scholar
  45. Napier, J. R., and Napier, P. H. (1967). A Handbook of Living Primates, Academic, London.Google Scholar
  46. Nixon, K. C., and Davis, J. I. (1991). Polymorphic taxa, missing values and cladistic analysis. Cladistics 7: 233-241.Google Scholar
  47. Novacek, M. J. (1980). Cranioskeletal features in tupaiids and selected Eutheria as phylogenetic evidence. In: Comparative Biology and Evolutionary Relationships of Tree Shrews, W. P. Luckett, ed., pp. 35-93, Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  48. Nowak, R. M. (1999). Walker's Mammals of the World, 6th edn., Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.Google Scholar
  49. Peters, W. (1864). Uber die Säugethiergattung Solenodon. Abhandl. Konig. Akad. Wissensch. Berlin 1863/1864: 1-22.Google Scholar
  50. Raffles, T. S. (1821). Descriptive catalogue of a zoological collection, made on account of the honourable East India Company, in the island of Sumatra and its vicinity, under the direction of Sir Thomas Stamford Raffles, Lieutenant-Governor of Fort Marlborough; with additional notices illustrative of the natural history of those countries. Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond. 13: 239-274.Google Scholar
  51. Sargis, E. J. (1999). Tree shrews. In: Encyclopedia of Paleontology, R. Singer, ed., pp. 1286-1287, Fitzroy Dearborn, Chicago.Google Scholar
  52. Sargis, E. J. (2000). The Functional Morphology of the Postcranium of Ptilocercus and Tupaiines (Scandentia, Tupaiidae): Implications for the Relationships of Primates and Other Archontan Mammals. PhD Dissertation, City University of New York, New York.Google Scholar
  53. Sargis, E. J. (2001). A preliminary qualitative analysis of the axial skeleton of tupaiids (Mammalia, Scandentia): Functional morphology and phylogenetic implications. J. Zool. Lond. 253: 473-483.Google Scholar
  54. Sargis, E. J. (2002a). A multivariate analysis of the postcranium of tree shrews (Scandentia, Tupaiidae) and its taxonomic implications. Mammalia 66: 579-598.Google Scholar
  55. Sargis, E. J. (2002b). Functional morphology of the forelimb of tupaiids (Mammalia, Scandentia) and its phylogenetic implications. J. Morphol. 253: 10-42.Google Scholar
  56. Sargis, E. J. (2002c). Functional morphology of the hindlimb of tupaiids (Mammalia, Scandentia) and its phylogenetic implications. J. Morphol. 254: 149-185.Google Scholar
  57. Sargis, E. J. (2002d). The postcranial morphology of Ptilocercus lowii (Scandentia, Tupaiidae): An analysis of primatomorphan and volitantian characters. J. Mammal. Evol. 9: 137-160.Google Scholar
  58. Sargis, E. J. (2004). New views on tree shrews: The role of tupaiids in primate supraordinal relationships. Evol. Anthropol. 13: 56-66.Google Scholar
  59. Sargis, E. J. (in press). The postcranial morphology of Ptilocercus lowii (Scandentia, Tupaiidae) and its implications for primate supraordinal relationships. In: Primate Origins and Adaptations: A Multidisciplinary Perspective, M. J. Ravosa and M. Dagosto, eds., Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  60. Schlegel, H. (1857). Handleiding to De Beoefening Der Dierkunde. Koninklijke Akad. Zee-en Landmagt, Leiden.Google Scholar
  61. Schlegel, H., and Müller, S. (1843). Over de op de oostindische eilanden levende soorten van het geslacht Hylogalea. Verh. Nat. Gesch. Nederl. Overz. Bezitt 1843: 159-168.Google Scholar
  62. Scotland, R. W., Olmstead, R. G., and Bennett, J. R. (2003). Phylogeny reconstruction: The role of morphology. Syst. Biol. 52: 539-548.Google Scholar
  63. Shoshani, J., and McKenna, M. C. (1998). Higher taxonomic relationships among extant mammals based on morphology, with selected comparisons of results from molecular data. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 9: 572-584.Google Scholar
  64. Silcox, M. T. (2001). A Phylogenetic Analysis of Plesiadapiformes and Their Relationship to Euprimates and Other Archontans. PhD Dissertation, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD.Google Scholar
  65. Stafford, B. J., and Thorington, R. W. (1998). Carpal development and morphology in archontan mammals. J. Morphol. 235: 135-155.Google Scholar
  66. Steele, D. G. (1973). Dental variability in the tree shrews (Tupaiidae). In: Craniofacial Biology of Primates: Symposium of the IVth International Congress of Primatology, Vol. 3, M. R. Zingeser, ed., pp. 154-179, Karger, Basel, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  67. Swofford, D. L. (2003). PAUP*: Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony (*and Other Methods), Version 4, Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA.Google Scholar
  68. Szalay, F. S., and Drawhorn, G. (1980). Evolution and diversification of the Archonta in an arboreal milieu. In: Comparative Biology and Evolutionary Relationships of Tree Shrews, W. P. Luckett, ed., pp. 133-169, Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  69. Szalay, F. S., and Lucas, S. G. (1993). Cranioskeletal morphology of archontans, and diagnoses of Chiroptera, Volitantia, and Archonta. In: Primates and Their Relatives in Phylogenetic Perspective, R. D. E. MacPhee, ed., pp. 187-226, Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  70. Szalay, F. S., and Lucas, S. G. (1996). The postcranial morphology of Paleocene Chriacus and Mixodectes and the phylogenetic relationships of archontan mammals. Bull. New Mex. Mus. Nat. Hist. Sci. 7: 1-47.Google Scholar
  71. Thomas, O. (1892). On some new Mammalia from the East Indian Archipelago. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. 9: 240-254.Google Scholar
  72. Thomas, O. (1893a). Description of a new Bornean Tupaia. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. 12: 53-54.Google Scholar
  73. Thomas, O. (1893b). On some new Bornean Mammalia. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. 11: 341-347.Google Scholar
  74. Thomas, O. (1894). On the Palawan representative of Tupaia ferruginea. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. 13: 367.Google Scholar
  75. Wagner, J. A. (1841). Schreber's Säugthiere, Supplementband, 2. Abtheilung 21841: 37-44, 553.Google Scholar
  76. Wagner, J. A. (1855). Die Säugethiere in Abbildungen nach der Natur, Weiger, Leipzig, Germany.Google Scholar
  77. Waterhouse, G. R. (1850). Description of a new species of Tupaia discovered in continent of India by Walter Elliot, Esq. Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond. 1849: 106-108.Google Scholar
  78. Wible, J. R., and Zeller, U. A. (1994). Cranial circulation of the pen-tailed tree shrew Ptilocercus lowii and relationships of Scandentia. J. Mammal. Evol. 2: 209-230.Google Scholar
  79. Wiens, J. J. (1998). The accuracy of methods for coding and sampling higher-level taxa for phylogenetic analysis: A simulation study. Syst. Biol. 47: 397-413.Google Scholar
  80. Wiens, J. J., ed. (2000). Phylogenetic Analysis of Morphological Data, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  81. Wilson, D. E. (1993). Order Scandentia. In: Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference, 2nd edn., D. E. Wilson and D. M. Reeder, eds., pp. 131-133, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  82. Zelebor, J. (1869). Säugethiere. Reise der österreichischen Fregatte Novara um die Erde in den Jahren 1857, 1858, 1859. Zool. Theil. 1: 1-42.Google Scholar
  83. Zeller, U. A. (1986a). Ontogeny and cranial morphology of the tympanic region of the Tupaiidae, with special reference to Ptilocercus. Folia Primatol. 47: 61-80.Google Scholar
  84. Zeller, U. A. (1986b). The systematic relations of tree shrews: Evidence from skull morphogenesis. In: Primate Evolution, J. G. Else and P. C. Lee, eds., pp. 273-280, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Link E. Olson
    • 1
  • Eric J. Sargis
    • 2
  • Robert D. Martin
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of ZoologyField MuseumChicagoUSA
  2. 2.Department of AnthropologyYale UniversityNew HavenUSA
  3. 3.Department of AnthropologyField MuseumChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations