4.7 Article

Extant species fail to estimate ancestral geographical ranges at older nodes in primate phylogeny

出版社

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2021.2535

关键词

dispersal; fossil; macroevolution; phylogeny; supertree

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the historical biogeography of Primates and their relatives using a novel meta-analytical phylogeny. The results showed that ancestral range estimates for young nodes were largely congruent with molecular phylogeny, but node age had a significant effect on the congruence of ancestral range estimates, with lower probability of congruent inference for older nodes.
A clade's evolutionary history is shaped, in part, by geographical range expansion, sweepstakes dispersal and local extinction. A rigorous understanding of historical biogeography may therefore yield insights into macroevolutionary dynamics such as adaptive radiation. Modern historical biogeographic analyses typically fit statistical models to molecular phylogenies, but it remains unclear whether extant species provide sufficient signal or if well-sampled phylogenies of extinct and extant taxa are necessary to produce meaningful estimates of past ranges. We investigated the historical biogeography of Primates and their euarchontan relatives using a novel meta-analytical phylogeny of over 900 extant (n= 419) and extinct (n = 483) species spanning their entire evolutionary history. Ancestral range estimates for young nodes were largely congruent with those derived from molecular phylogeny. However, node age exerts a significant effect on ancestral range estimate congruence, and the probability of congruent inference dropped below 0.5 for nodes older than the late Eocene, corresponding to the origins of higher-level clades. Discordance was not observed in analyses of extinct taxa alone. Fossils are essential for robust ancestral range inference and biogeographic analyses of extant clades originating in the deep past should be viewed with scepticism without them.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据