A Critique of Matrix Representation with Parsimony Supertrees

  • John Gatesy
  • Mark S. Springer
Chapter
Part of the Computational Biology book series (COBO, volume 4)

Abstract

Strict and semi-strict supertree construction methods can be used to summarize groups that are consistent with all source phylogenies. Other procedures, such as Matrix Representation with Parsimony (MRP), arbitrate conflicts among incompatible source trees, and can provide more topological resolution than strict and semi-strict methods. MRP has been used to construct most of the large supertrees that have been published to date. We review some of the inherent problems with MRP and other supertree methods, point out specific difficulties in previously published Mrp-supertree analyses, question some of the possible advantages of supertrees, and suggest that supermatrix analyses of character data should provide the primary framework for comparative biology in the 21st century.

Keywords

character computational efficiency hidden support non-independence supermatrix 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baker, R. H. and Desalle, R. 1997. Multiple sources of character information and the phylogeny of Hawaiian drosophilids. Systematic Biology 46:654–673.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barrett, M., Donoghue, M. J., and Sober, E. 1991. Against consensus. Systematic Zoology 40:486–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baum, B. R. 1992. Combining trees as a way of combining data sets for phylogenetic inference, and the desirability of combining gene trees. Taxon 41:3–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bininda-Emonds, O. R. P. 2003. Novel versus unsupported clades: assessing the qualitative support for clades in MRP supertrees. Systematic Biology 52:839–848.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bininda-Emonds, O. R. P. and Bryant, H. N. 1998. Properties of matrix representation with parsimony analyses. Systematic Biology 47:497–508.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Bininda-Emonds, O. R. P., and Sanderson, M. J. 2001. Assessment of the accuracy of matrix representation with parsimony analysis supertree construction. Systematic Biology 50:565–579.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bininda-Emonds, O. R. P., Gittleman, J. L., and Purvis, A. 1999. Building large trees by combining phylogenetic information: a complete phylogeny of the extant Carnivora (Mammalia). Biological Review 74:143–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bininda-Emonds, O. R. P., Gittleman, J. L., and Steel, M. A. 2002. The (super)tree of life: procedures, problems, and prospects. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 33:265–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bininda-Emonds, O. R. P., Jones, K. E., Price, S. A., Cardillo, M., Grenyer, R., and Purvis, A. 2004. Garbage in, garbage out: data issues in supertree construction. In O. R. P. Bininda-Emonds (ed). Phylogenetic Supertrees: Combining Information to Reveal the Tree of Life, pp. 267–280. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
  10. Bookstein, F. L. 1994. Can biometrical shape be a homologous character? In B. Hall (ed.), Homology: The Hierarchical Basis of Comparative Biology, pp. 198–227, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  11. Bremer, K. 1994. Branch support and tree stability. Cladistics 10:295–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bryant, H. N. 2004. The cladistics of matrix representation with parsimony analysis. In O. R. P. Bininda-Emonds (ed). Phylogenetic Supertrees: Combining Information to Reveal the Tree of Life, pp. 353–368. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
  13. Burleigh, J. G., Eulenstein, O., Fernandez-Baca, D., and Sanderson, M. J. 2004. MRF supertrees. In O. R. P. Bininda-Emonds (ed). Phylogenetic Supertrees: Combining Information to Reveal the Tree of Life, pp. 65–85. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
  14. Cotton, J. A. and Page, R. D. M. 2004. Tangled trees from molecular markers: reconciling conflict between phylogenies to build molecular supertrees. In O. R. P. Bininda-Emonds (ed.), Phylogenetic Supertrees: Combining Information to Reveal the Tree of Life, pp. 107–125. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
  15. Daubin, V., Gouy, M., and Perriere, G. 2001. Bacterial molecular phylogeny using supertree approach. Genome Informatics 12:155–164.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Farris, J. S. 1983. The logical basis of phylogenetic analysis. In N. Platnick and V. Funk (eds.), Advances in Cladistics, volume 2, pp. 7–36, Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  17. Farris, J. S., Källersjö, M., and Delaet, J. 2001. Branch lengths do not indicate support-even in maximum likelihood. Cladistics 17:298–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Felsenstein, J. 1985. Confidence limits on phylogenies: an approach using the bootstrap. Evolution 39:783–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gatesy, J., Milinkovitch, M. C., Waddell, V., and Stanhope, M. S. 1999. Stability of cladistic relationships between Cetacea and higher-level artiodactyl taxa. Systematic Biology 48:6–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gatesy, J., Matthee, C., Desalle, R., and Hayashi, C. Y. 2002. Resolution of a supertree / supermatrix paradox. Systematic Biology 51:652–664.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gittleman, J. L. and Purvis, A. 1998. Body size and species richness in carnivores and primates. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 265:113–119.Google Scholar
  22. Goloboff, P. A., and Pol, D. 2002. Semi-strict supertrees. Cladistics 18:514–525.Google Scholar
  23. Hollar, L. J. and Springer M. S. 1997. Old World fruitbat phylogeny: evidence for convergent evolution and an endemic African clade. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United State ofAmerica 94:5716–5721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hoofer, S. R. and Van Den Bussche, R. A. 2001. Phylogenetic relationships of plecotine bats and allies based on mitochondrial ribosomal sequences. Journal of Mammalogy 82:131–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hoover, A. 2001. A first: a (nearly) complete road map for the evolution of placental mammals. University ofFlorida News, March1.Google Scholar
  26. Jones, K. E., Purvis, A., Maclarnon, A., Bininda-Emonds, O. R. P., and Simmons, N. B. 2002. A phylogenetic supertree of the bats (Mammalia: Chiroptera). Biological Review 77:223–259.Google Scholar
  27. Källersjö, M., Farris, J. S., Chase, M. W., Bremer, B., Fay, M. F., Humphries, C. J., Peterson, G., Seberg, O., and Bremer, K. 1998. Simultaneous parsimony jackknife analysis of 2538 rbcL DNA sequences reveals support for major clades of green plants, land plants, seed plants, and flowering plants. Plant Systematics and Evolution 213:259–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kennedy, M. and Page, R. D. M. 2002. Seabird supertrees: combining partial estimates of procellariiform phylogeny. The Auk 119:88–108.Google Scholar
  29. Kluge, A. G. 1989. A concern for evidence and a phylogenetic hypothesis of relationships among Epicrates (Boidae, Serpentes). Systematic Zoology 38:7–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lapointe, F.-J. and Levasseur, C. 2004. Everything you always wanted to know about the average consensus, and more. In O. R. P. Bininda-Emonds (ed.), Phylogenetic Supertrees: Combining Information to Reveal the Tree of Life, pp. 87–105. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
  31. Lee, M. S. Y. and Hugall, A. F. 2003. Partitioned likelihood support and the evaluation of data set conflict. Systematic Biology 52:15–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Liu, F.-G. R., Miyamoto, M. M., Freire, N. P., Ong, P. Q., Tennant, M. R., Young, T. S., and Gugel, K. F. 2001. Molecular and morphological supertrees for eutherian (placental) mammals. Science 291:1786–1789.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Maddison, W. P. 1997. Gene trees in species trees. Systematic Biology 46:523–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Madsen, O., Scally, M., Douady, C. J., Kao, D. J., Debry, R. W., Adkins, R., Amrine, H. M., Stanhope, M. J., De Jong, W. W., and Springer, M. S. 2001. Parallel adaptive radiations in two major clades of placental mammals. Nature 409:610–614.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Marks, J., Schmid, C. W., and Sarich V. M. 1988. DNA hybridization as a guide to phylogeny: relations of the Hominoidea. Journal of Human Evolution 17:769–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Miyamoto, M. M. 1985. Consensus cladograms and general classifications. Cladistics 1:186–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Miyamoto, M. M. and Fitch, W. M. 1995. Testing species phylogenies and phylogenetic methods with congruence. Systematic Biology 44:64–76.Google Scholar
  38. Murphy, W. J., Eizrik, E., Johnson, W. E., Zhang, Y. P., Ryder, O. A. and O’Brien, S. J. 2001. Molecular phylogenetics and the origins of placental mammals. Nature 409:614–618.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Novacek, M. J. 1980. Phylogenetic analysis of the chiropteran auditory region. In D. Wilson and A. Gardner (eds), Proceedings of the Fifth International Bat Research Conference, pp. 317–330. Texas Tech. University, USA.Google Scholar
  40. Patterson, C. 1982. Morphological characters and homology. In A. Joysey and A. Friday (eds), Problems ofPhylogenetic Reconstruction, pp. 21–74. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
  41. Piaggio-Talice, R., Burleigh, J. G., and Eulenstein, O. 2004. Quartet supertrees. In O. R. P. Bininda-Emonds (ed). Phylogenetic Supertrees: Combining Information to Reveal the Tree of Life, pp. 173–191. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
  42. Pisani, D., Yates, A., Langer, M., and Benton, M. 2001. A genus-level supertree of the Dinosauria. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B 269:915–921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pisani, D. and Wilkinson, M. 2002. Matrix representation with parsimony, taxonomic congruence, and total evidence. Systematic Biology 51:151–155.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Purvis, A. 1995a. A composite estimate of primate phylogeny. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society ofLondon B 348:405–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Purvis, A. 1995b. A modification to Baum and Ragan ’s method for combining phylogenetic trees. Systematic Biology 44:251–255.Google Scholar
  46. Purvis, A., Nee, S., and Harvey, P. H. 1995. Macroevolutionary inferences from primate phylogeny. Proceedings of the Royal Society ofLondon B 260:329–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ragan, M. A. 1992. Phylogenetic inference based on matrix representation of trees. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 1:53–58.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. De Queiroz, K. and Poe, S. 2001. Philosophy and phylogenetic inference: a comparison of likelihood and parsimony methods in the context of Karl Popper ’s writings on corroboration. Systematic Biology 50:305–321.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rodrigo, A. G. 1993. A comment on Baum ’s method for combining phylogenetic trees. Taxon 42:631–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rodrigo, A. G. 1996. On combining cladograms. Taxon 45:267–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Ronquist, F. 1996. Matrix representation of trees, redundancy, and weighting. Systematic Biology 45:247–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Salamin, N., Hodkinson, T. R., and Savolainen, V. 2002. Building supertrees: an empirical assessment using the grass family (Poaceae). Systematic Biology 51:136–150.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sanderson, M. J., Purvis, A., and Henze, C. 1998. Phylogenetic supertrees: assembling the trees of life. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 13:105–109.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Semple, C. and Steel, M. 2000. A supertree method for rooted trees. Discrete Applied Mathematics 105:147–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sibley, C. G. and Ahlquist, J. E. 1990. Phylogeny and Classification of Birds: a Study in Molecular Evolution. Yale University Press, New Haven.Google Scholar
  56. Simmons, N. B. and Geisler, J. H. 1998. Phylogenetic relationships of Icaronycteris, Archaeonycteris, Hassianycteris, and Palaeochiropteryx to extant bat lineages, with comments on the evolution of echolocation and foraging strategies in Microchiroptera. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 235:1–82.Google Scholar
  57. Slowinski, J. B. and Page, R. D. M. 1999. How should species phylogenies be inferred from sequence data? Systematic Biology 48:814–825.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Soltis, P. S., Soltis, D. E., and Chase, M. W. 1999. Angiosperm phylogeny inferred from multiple genes as a tool for comparative biology. Nature 402:402–404.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Springer, M. S. and De Jong, W. W. 2001. Phylogenetics. Which mammalian supertree to bark up? Science 291:1709–1711.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Steel, M. A. 1992. The complexity of reconstructing trees from qualitative characters and subtrees. Journal of Classification 9:91–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Swiderski, D. L., Zelditch, M. L., and Fink, W. L. 1998. Why morphometrics is not special: coding quantitative data for phylogenetic analysis. Systematic Biology 47:508–519.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Swofford, D. L. 1998. Pa Up *. Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony (*and Other Methods). Version 4. Sinauer, Sunderland, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  63. Teeling, E. C., Scally, M., Kao, D. J., Romagnoli, M. L., Springer, M. S., and Stanhope, M. J. 2000. Molecular evidence regarding the origin of echolocation and flight in bats. Nature 403:188–192.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Van Den Bussche, R. A. and Hoofer, S. R. 2001. Evaluating monophyly of Nataloidea (Chiroptera) with mitochondrial DNA sequences. Journal of Mammalogy 82:320–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Van De Peer, Y. and De Wachter, R. 1997. Evolutionary relationships among the eukaryotic crown taxa taking into account site-to-site rate variation in 18S rRNA. Journal of Molecular Evolution 45:619–630.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wilkinson, M., Thorley, J. L., Littlewood, D. T. J., and Bray, R. A. 2001. Towards a phylogenetic supertree of Platyhelminthes? In D. Littlewood and R. Bray (eds), Interrelationships of the Platyhelminthes, pp. 292–301. Chapman-Hall, London.Google Scholar
  67. Wilkinson, M., Lapointe, F.-J., and Gower, D. J. 2003. Branch lengths and support Systematic Biology 52:127–130.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wojciechowski, M. F., Sanderson, M. J., Steel, K. P., and Liston, A. 2000. Molecular phylogeny of the “temperate herbaceous tribes” of papilionoid legumes: a supertree approach. In P. Herendeen and A. Bruneau (eds), Advances in Legume Systematics 9:277–298. Royal Botanic Garden, Kew.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Gatesy
  • Mark S. Springer

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations