Phylogeny of the Trilobite Subgenus Acanthopyge (Lobopyge)

Ebach, Malte C.; Ahyong, Shane T.

doi:10.1006/clad.1999.0145

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The same analysis was also carried out in Analysis D where only those fossil taxa with sufficient informative characters to provide resolution of relationships within the ‘dental hominoid clade’ (defined in ) were included. This technique recognizes that missing data may increase the number of equally parsimonious trees as well as result in the production of spurious cladograms (Ebach & Ahyong, 2001). Unresolved relationships in Analyses C and D were identified by strict consensus.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evolution of the second orangutan: phylogeny and biogeography of hominid origins

Grehan

Schwartz

2009

Journal of Biogeography

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim To resolve the phylogeny of humans and their fossil relatives (collectively, hominids), orangutans (Pongo) and various Miocene great apes and to present a biogeographical model for their differentiation in space and time.Location Africa, northern Mediterranean, Asia.Methods Maximum parsimony analysis was used to assess phylogenetic relationships among living large-bodied hominoids (= humans, chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, orangutans), and various related African, Asian and European ape fossils. Biogeographical characteristics were analysed for vicariant replacement, main massings and nodes. A geomorphological correlation was identified for a clade we refer to as the 'dental hominoids', and this correlation was used to reconstruct their historical geography. ResultsOur analyses support the following hypotheses: (1) the living largebodied hominoids represent a monophyletic group comprising two sister clades: humans + orangutans, and chimpanzees (including bonobos) + gorillas (collectively, the African apes); and (2) the human-orangutan clade (dental hominoids) includes fossil hominids (Homo, australopiths, Orrorin) and the Miocene-age apes Hispanopithecus, Ouranopithecus, Ankarapithecus, Sivapithecus, Lufengpithecus, Khoratpithecus and Gigantopithecus (also Plio-Pleistocene of eastern Asia). We also demonstrate that the distributions of living and fossil genera are largely vicariant, with nodes of geographical overlap or proximity between Gigantopithecus and Sivapithecus in Central Asia, and between Pongo, Gigantopithecus, Lufengpithecus and Khoratpithecus in East Asia. The main massing is represented by five genera and eight species in East Asia. The dental hominoid track is spatially correlated with the East African Rift System (EARS) and the Tethys Orogenic Collage (TOC).Main conclusions Humans and orangutans share a common ancestor that excludes the extant African apes. Molecular analyses are compromised by phenetic procedures such as alignment and are probably based on primitive retentions. We infer that the human-orangutan common ancestor had established a widespread distribution by at least 13 Ma. Vicariant differentiation resulted in the ancestors of hominids in East Africa and various primarily Miocene apes distributed between Spain and Southeast Asia (and possibly also parts of East Africa). The geographical disjunction between early hominids and Asian Pongo is attributed to local extinctions between Europe and Central Asia. The EARS and TOC correlations suggest that these geomorphological features mediated establishment of the ancestral range.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evolution of the second orangutan: phylogeny and biogeography of hominid origins

Grehan

Schwartz

2009

Journal of Biogeography

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Missing data have constituted a pervasive problem for a number of reasons, including claims of a decrease in the accuracy of phylogeny estimation (Huelsenbeck, 1991), by providing artificial resolution within recovered trees (Kitching et al. , 1998), and by providing positively misleading results (Grande & Bemis, 1998; Ebach & Ahyong, 2001). Missing data in fossil taxa have also been cited to justify the exclusion of extinct taxa from phylogenetic reconstructions (Patterson, 1981; Ax, 1987).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gauging the effects of sampling failure in biogeographical analysis

Turner

Smith

Callery

2009

Journal of Biogeography

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim Various methods are employed to recover patterns of area relationships in extinct and extant clades. The fidelity of these patterns can be adversely affected by sampling error in the form of missing data. Here we use simulation studies to evaluate the sensitivity of an analytical biogeographical method, namely tree reconciliation analysis (TRA), to this form of sampling failure. Location Simulation study. Methods To approximate varying degrees of taxonomic sampling failure within phylogenies varying in size and in redundancy of biogeographical signal, we applied sequential pruning protocols to artificial taxon–area cladograms displaying congruent patterns of area relationships. Initial trials assumed equal probability of sampling failure among all areas. Additional trials assigned weighted probabilities to each of the areas in order to explore the effects of uneven geographical sampling. Pruned taxon–area cladograms were then analysed with TRA to determine if the optimal area cladograms recovered match the original biogeographical signal, or if they represent false, ambiguous or uninformative signals. Results The results indicate a period of consistently accurate recovery of the true biogeographical signal, followed by a nonlinear decrease in signal recovery as more taxa are pruned. At high levels of sampling failure, false biogeographical signals are more likely to be recovered than the true signal. However, randomization testing for statistical significance greatly decreases the chance of accepting false signals. The primary inflection of the signal recovery curve, and its steepness and slope depend upon taxon–area cladogram size and area redundancy, as well as on the evenness of sampling. Uneven sampling across geographical areas is found to have serious deleterious effects on TRA, with the accuracy of recovery of biogeographical signal varying by an order of magnitude or more across different sampling regimes. Main conclusions These simulations reiterate the importance of taxon sampling in biogeographical analysis, and attest to the importance of considering geographical, as well as overall, sampling failure when interpreting the robustness of biogeographical signals. In addition to randomization testing for significance, we suggest the use of randomized sequential taxon deletions and the construction of signal decay curves as a means to assess the robustness of biogeographical signals for empirical data sets.

show abstract

“…These analyses focus on lower taxonomic levels, such as genera, families or subfamilies (e.g. Ramsköld & Werdelin ; Ebach & Ahyong ; Waisfeld et al . ; Sundberg ; Karim ; Lee et al .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

First cladistic analysis of the trilobite family Olenidae from the Furongian and Ordovician

Monti

Confalonieri

2019

LET

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Olenidae stands out for its abundance and biostratigraphical importance, especially in the Lower Palaeozoic rocks of northwestern Argentina. Their phylogenetic relationships have been traditionally determined stratigraphically and by direct morphological comparison. This study reports the first formal phylogenetic analysis of olenids. Eighty‐six characters (24 quantitative and 62 qualitative) were coded for 65 taxa (58 olenids). Quantitative characters were treated both as discrete and as continuous variables. To explore the best way of character coding for this group, continuous characters were coded as: median, log‐median, normalized and rescaled. Maximum parsimony and implied weighting were used as optimality criteria. A phylogenetic hypothesis more consistent with traditional taxonomy was reconstructed with both quantitative and qualitative partitions. All the trees obtained with quantitative characters coded as continuous and rescaled are better resolved, and those topologies were more similar among them. This treatment also reflects more effectively the behaviour of the original variables. Olenidae is not a monophyletic clade: Andrarina costata and Aphelaspis australis are included within the ingroup, as sister clade of Olenus gibbosus. Also, the results suggest that members of the Hypermecaspidinae constitute a new family within the Order Olenida. The traditional taxonomic scheme at subfamily level is partially supported. Triarthrinae and ‘pelturinds’ are recovered as monophyletic clades, but Oleninae is polyphyletic. This study proves, through a formal cladistic analysis, that characters disregarded by traditional taxonomy can be uncovered. Finally, this is the first step towards achieving a classification of the Olenidae taking into account the evolutionary process involved in its diversification history.

show abstract

Phylogeny of the Trilobite Subgenus Acanthopyge (Lobopyge)

Abstract: Cladistic analysis of the trilobite subgenus AcanthopygeMaksimova, 1977, and species later assigned to Borealarges Adrain, 1994, were also thought to be closely

Cited by 6 publications

References 23 publications

Evolution of the second orangutan: phylogeny and biogeography of hominid origins

Evolution of the second orangutan: phylogeny and biogeography of hominid origins

Gauging the effects of sampling failure in biogeographical analysis

First cladistic analysis of the trilobite family Olenidae from the Furongian and Ordovician

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About