10.5061/DRYAD.F9V3778
Sansom, Robert S.
University of Manchester
Choate, Peter G.
University of Manchester
Keating, Joseph N.
University of Manchester
Randle, Emma
University of Bath
Data from: Parsimony, not Bayesian analysis, recovers more
stratigraphically congruent phylogenetic trees
Dryad
dataset
2018
Stratigraphic congruence
Bayesian
2018-05-22T15:23:29Z
2018-05-22T15:23:29Z
en
https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2018.0263
3258631 bytes
1
CC0 1.0 Universal (CC0 1.0) Public Domain Dedication
Reconstructing evolutionary histories requires accurate phylogenetic
trees. Recent simulation studies suggest that probabilistic phylogenetic
analyses of morphological data are more accurate than traditional
parsimony techniques. Here we use empirical data to compare Bayesian and
parsimony phylogenies in terms of their congruence with the distribution
of age ranges of the component taxa. Analysis of 167 independent
morphological data matrices of fossil tetrapods finds that Bayesian trees
exhibit significantly lower stratigraphic congruence than the equivalent
parsimony trees. As such, taking stratigraphic data as an independent
benchmark indicates that parsimony analyses are more accurate for
phylogenetic reconstruction of morphological data. The discrepancy between
simulated and empirical studies may result from historic data peaking
practises or some complexities of empirical data as yet unaccounted for.
RESULTSALLSTRAPcomb2Matrices (nexus) and age range data for the 167
datasets analysed, and final results (stratigraphic congruence scores for
each tree)SansometalESM.zip