Homology assessment in parsimony and model‐based analyses: two sides of the same coin
Citations Over TimeTop 10% of 2014 papers
Abstract
Abstract The present paper is mainly concerned with homology assessment through phylogenetic analyses. It raises a fundamental question: What are the epistemological differences between modern parsimony and model‐based analyses in relation to homology assessment and phylogenetic inference? Although these methods usually achieve concordant topological results, they may generate discordant inferences of character evolution from the same datasets. This indicates that method selection has serious implications for evolutionary scenarios and classificatory arrangements. Notwithstanding that parsimony and model‐based approaches use the H ennigian concepts of monophyly and synapomorphy, they employ different epistemological ways of dealing with the monophyly/synapomorphy relationship. Independently of their differences, these analyses should take into account all relevant evidence in support of the phylogenetic inferences. A focus on morphological homologues means that they must be included in data matrices, evaluated as part of the phylogenetic analysis, and cannot be ignored in calculation of the tree(s) length (parsimony), maximum‐likelihood (maximum‐likelihood), and posterior probabilities ( B ayes).
Related Papers
- → Phylogeny of the Family Platycephalidae and Related Taxa (Pisces : Scorpaeniformes)(1996)91 cited
- → Are monophyly and synapomorphy the same or different? Revisiting the role of morphology in phylogenetics(2010)54 cited
- → Monophyly of Euaesthetinae (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae): phylogenetic evidence from adults and larvae, review of austral genera, and new larval descriptions(2009)31 cited
- → Phylogenetic analysis of Trechitae (Coleoptera: Carabidae) based on larval morphology, with a description of first‐instar Phrypeus and a key to genera(2004)29 cited
- Cladistic Analysis Base on Genera of Pamphiliidae(Hymenoptera)(2007)