4.5 Article

IDENTIFYING HETEROGENEITY IN RATES OF MORPHOLOGICAL EVOLUTION: DISCRETE CHARACTER CHANGE IN THE EVOLUTION OF LUNGFISH (SARCOPTERYGII; DIPNOI)

期刊

EVOLUTION
卷 66, 期 2, 页码 330-348

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2011.01460.x

关键词

Adaptive radiation; evolutionary rates; lungfish; morphological evolution; paleontology; punctuated equilibrium

资金

  1. Natural Enviornment Research Council [NER/S/A/2004/12222]
  2. Swarthmore College
  3. National Science Foundation (NSF) [NSF DEB 1110357]
  4. Marshall Scholarship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Quantifying rates of morphological evolution is important in many macroevolutionary studies, and critical when assessing possible adaptive radiations and episodes of punctuated equilibrium in the fossil record. However, studies of morphological rates of change have lagged behind those on taxonomic diversification, and most authors have focused on continuous characters and quantifying patterns of morphological rates over time. Here, we provide a phylogenetic approach, using discrete characters and three statistical tests to determine points on a cladogram (branches or entire clades) that are characterized by significantly high or low rates of change. These methods include a randomization approach that identifies branches with significantly high rates and likelihood ratio tests that pinpoint either branches or clades that have significantly higher or lower rates than the pooled rate of the remainder of the tree. As a test case for these methods, we analyze a discrete character dataset of lungfish, which have long been regarded as living fossils due to an apparent slowdown in rates since the Devonian. We find that morphological rates are highly heterogeneous across the phylogeny and recover a general pattern of decreasing rates along the phylogenetic backbone toward living taxa, from the Devonian until the present. Compared with previous work, we are able to report a more nuanced picture of lungfish evolution using these new methods.

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

4.5
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