4.5 Article

Exploring the effects of phylogenetic uncertainty and consensus trees on stratigraphic consistency scores: a new program and a standardized method

Journal

CLADISTICS
Volume 27, Issue 1, Pages 52-60

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1096-0031.2010.00320.x

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The stratigraphic record of first appearances provides an independent source of data for evaluating and comparing phylogenetic hypotheses that include taxa with fossil histories. However, no standardized method exists for calculating these metrics for polytomous phylogenies, restricting their applicability. Previously proposed methods insufficiently deal with this problem because they skew or restrict the resulting scores. To resolve this issue, we propose a standardized method for treating polytomies when calculating these metrics: the Comprehensive Polytomy approach (ComPoly). This approach accurately describes how phylogenetic uncertainty, indicated by polytomies, affects stratigraphic consistency scores. We also present a new program suite (Assistance with Stratigraphic Consistency Calculations) that incorporates the ComPoly approach and simplifies the calculation of absolute temporal stratigraphic consistency metrics. This study also demonstrates that stratigraphic consistency scores calculated from strict consensus trees can be overly inclusive and those calculated from less-than-strict consensus trees inaccurately describe the phylogenetic signal present in the source most-parsimonious trees (MPTs). Therefore, stratigraphic consistency scores should be calculated directly from the source MPTs whenever possible to ensure their accuracy. Finally, we offer recommendations for standardizing comparisons between molecular divergence dates and the stratigraphic record of first appearances, a promising new application of these methods. (C) The Willi Hennig Society 2010.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available