A Phylogenetic Networks perspective on reticulate human evolution

Abstract

SUMMARY We present a methodological phylogenetic reconstruction approach combining Maximum Parsimony and Phylogenetic Networks methods for the study of human evolution applied to phenotypic craniodental characters of 22 hominin species. The approach consists in selecting and validating a tree-like most parsimonious scenario out of several parsimony runs based on various numerical constraints. An intermediate step from tree to network methods is implemented by running an analysis with a reduced apomorphous character dataset that generates multiple parsimonious trees. These most parsimonious trees are then used as input for a Phylogenetic Networks analysis that results in consensus and reticulate networks. We show here that the phylogenetic tree-like definition of the genus Homo is a relative concept linked to craniodental characters that come in support of hypothetical Last Common Ancestors of the most parsimonious scenario and infer that the Homo reticulate network concords with recent findings in paleogenomic research regarding its mode of evolution.

Evidence for deliberate burial of the dead byHomo naledi

“…The evidence demonstrates that this complex cultural behavior was not a simple function of brain size. While we cannot at this time exclude H. naledi as part of the ancestral makeup of humans, its overall morphology suggests that its common ancestors with today's humans and Neandertals go back a million years or more (Dembo et al, 2016;Argue et al, 2017;Caparros and Prat, 2021;Thackeray, 2015). This raises the possibility that burial or other mortuary behavior may have arisen much earlier than present evidence for them, or that such behaviors evolved convergently in minds different from our own.…”

Interspecific hybridization explains rapid gorget colour divergence inHeliodoxahummingbirds (Aves: Trochilidae)

“…For each UCE alignment, we estimated a maximum-likelihood tree using IQ-TREE 2 [ 44 ]. We then input these 3763 trees into splitsTree v. 4.18.3 [ 45 ] and constructed a phylogenetic network using ConsensusNetwork with an edge threshold of 0.1, following Caparros and Prat [ 46 ].…”

Comment définir l’humain à partir de sa diversité ? Questions épistémologiques et enjeux philosophiques

“…Ce changement de modèle implique d'aller au-delà du modèle arborescent, qui conçoit l'évolution comme une série d'événements de ramification produisant un produit final unique -un taxon -à l'extrémité de chaque branche (Athreya et Hopkins, 2021). La portée explicative des modèles de reconstruction phylogénétique sous la forme d'une arborescence dichotomique est limitée, car ils n'expliquent pas la nature des processus évolutionnaires sousjacents et du mode d'évolution, soulignent Caparros et Prat (2021). Par conséquent, j'estime qu'il est nécessaire de questionner la conception positiviste de l'histoire de la paléoanthropologie selon laquelle le passage du modèle de l'échelle à celui du buisson constitue un progrès indépassable et définir un autre modèle pour penser la diversité humaine du passé, en faisant du modèle réticulé d'évolution (Holliday, 2003 ;Arnold, 2009) un nouveau cadre théorique permettant de visualiser différemment les phylogénies (Ackermann et al, 2019 ;Caparros et Prat, 2021).…”