2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.ympev.2014.10.011
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

An evaluation of fossil tip-dating versus node-age calibrations in tetraodontiform fishes (Teleostei: Percomorphaceae)

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

14
128
3

Year Published

2015
2015
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7
2
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 143 publications
(145 citation statements)
references
References 80 publications
14
128
3
Order By: Relevance
“…We thus propose balancing different lines of evidence, including information from standard substitution rates, results generated using secondary calibrations, and data based on the morphology of the fossil and related taxa (Lóriga et al, 2014;Heinrichs et al, 2015;Schneider et al, 2015Schneider et al, , 2016Feldberg et al, 2017). The recently proposed fossilized birth-death approach was designed to overcome the problem of assigning fossils to certain nodes in divergence time analyses (Heath et al, 2014); however, this approach requires a dense fossil record and numerous morphological character states of both fossils and extant taxa to be coded (Arcila et al, 2015;Warnock et al, 2015). We were unable to successfully employ this approach because of the small number of Radula fossils, their incomplete preservation, and the monotonous morphology of both the majority of extant and fossil species (Grolle, 1987;Renner and Braggins, 2004;Renner, 2015;Heinrichs et al, 2016b;Kaasalainen et al, 2017).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We thus propose balancing different lines of evidence, including information from standard substitution rates, results generated using secondary calibrations, and data based on the morphology of the fossil and related taxa (Lóriga et al, 2014;Heinrichs et al, 2015;Schneider et al, 2015Schneider et al, , 2016Feldberg et al, 2017). The recently proposed fossilized birth-death approach was designed to overcome the problem of assigning fossils to certain nodes in divergence time analyses (Heath et al, 2014); however, this approach requires a dense fossil record and numerous morphological character states of both fossils and extant taxa to be coded (Arcila et al, 2015;Warnock et al, 2015). We were unable to successfully employ this approach because of the small number of Radula fossils, their incomplete preservation, and the monotonous morphology of both the majority of extant and fossil species (Grolle, 1987;Renner and Braggins, 2004;Renner, 2015;Heinrichs et al, 2016b;Kaasalainen et al, 2017).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…They also did not find the increase in precision noted by Ronquist et al [2012a]. Arcila et al [2015] examined the diversification of tetraodontiform fishes using node-and tip-dating calibrations. In a set of extensive comparisons using BEAST and MrBayes, they also found that tip-dating approaches yielded older age estimates.…”
Section: Node-age Differences Based On Tip-dating and Node-datingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Finally, tip-dating is computationally demanding [66], and has only thus far been applied to relatively small genetic datasets [39,42,67]. Efficient, highly parallelised algorithms for analysing genomic-scale data do not yet simultaneously infer topology and divergence dates, although some can accommodate morphological data in (undated) simultaneous analyses [68].…”
Section: Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%