ArticleSystematic biology2020
Morphological Phylogenetics Evaluated Using Novel Evolutionary Simulations.
Article in Systematic biology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 45 citations in OpenAlex.
- Building phenotypic character matrices for phylogenetic inference: exploration of 35 years of practice.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2026Pooled it
- Phylogenetic congruence, conflict and consilience between molecular and morphological data.BMC ecology and evolution · 2023Pooled it
- Estimating Divergence Times and Diversification Rates with the Unresolved Fossilized Birth-Death Process.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Phylogenetic Inference from Atomized 3D Morphometric Data: A Case Study using Kangaroos.Systematic biology · 2026Article
- Practical Guide and Review of Fossil Tip-Dating in Phylogenetics.Systematic biology · 2026Review
- How many characters are needed to reconstruct a phylogeny?Biology letters · 2025Article
- Toward a Comprehensive Anatomical Matrix for Crown Birds: Phylogenetic Insights from the Pectoral Girdle and Forelimb Skeleton.Integrative organismal biology (Oxford, England) · 2025Article
- Performance of tree-building methods using a morphological dataset and a well-supported Hexapoda phylogeny.PeerJ · 2024Article
- Evaluating the Accuracy of Methods for Detecting Correlated Rates of Molecular and Morphological Evolution.Systematic biology · 2023Article
- Handling Logical Character Dependency in Phylogenetic Inference: Extensive Performance Testing of Assumptions and Solutions Using Simulated and Empirical Data.Systematic biology · 2023Article
- Molecular phylogenies map to biogeography better than morphological ones.Communications biology · 2022Article
- Phylogenetic analyses of ray-finned fishes (Actinopterygii) using collagen type I protein sequences.Royal Society open science · 2021Article
- Fossils improve phylogenetic analyses of morphological characters.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2021Article
- Sphenodontian phylogeny and the impact of model choice in Bayesian morphological clock estimates of divergence times and evolutionary rates.BMC biology · 2020Article
- The origin of Rhinocerotoidea and phylogeny of Ceratomorpha (Mammalia, Perissodactyla).Communications biology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Evolutionary inferences require reliable phylogenies. Morphological data have traditionally been analyzed using maximum parsimony, but recent simulation studies have suggested that Bayesian analyses yield more accurate trees. This debate is ongoing, in part, because of ambiguity over modes of morphological evolution and a lack of appropriate models. Here, we investigate phylogenetic methods using two novel simulation models-one in which morphological characters evolve stochastically along lineages and another in which individuals undergo selection. Both models generate character data and lineage splitting simultaneously: the resulting trees are an emergent property, rather than a fixed parameter. Standard consensus methods for Bayesian searches (Mki) yield fewer incorrect nodes and quartets than the standard consensus trees recovered using equal weighting and implied weighting parsimony searches. Distances between the pool of derived trees (most parsimonious or posterior distribution) and the true trees-measured using Robinson-Foulds (RF), subtree prune and regraft (SPR), and tree bisection reconnection (TBR) metrics-demonstrate that this is related to the search strategy and consensus method of each technique. The amount and structure of homoplasy in character data differ between models. Morphological coherence, which has previously not been considered in this context, proves to be a more important factor for phylogenetic accuracy than homoplasy. Selection-based models exhibit relatively lower homoplasy, lower morphological coherence, and higher inaccuracy in inferred trees. Selection is a dominant driver of morphological evolution, but we demonstrate that it has a confounding effect on numerous character properties which are fundamental to phylogenetic inference. We suggest that the current debate should move beyond considerations of parsimony versus Bayesian, toward identifying modes of morphological evolution and using these to build models for probabilistic search methods. [Bayesian; evolution; morphology; parsimony; phylogenetics; selection; simulation.].
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.