Understanding Evolutionary Trees

Charles Darwin sketched his first evolutionary tree in 1837, and trees have remained a central metaphor in evolutionary biology up to the present. Today, phylogenetics—the science of constructing and evaluating hypotheses about historical patterns of descent in the form of evolutionary trees—has become pervasive within and increasingly outside evolutionary biology. Fostering skills in “tree thinking” is therefore a critical component of biological education. Conversely, misconceptions about evolutionary trees can be very detrimental to one’s understanding of the patterns and processes that have occurred in the history of life. This paper provides a basic introduction to evolutionary trees, including some guidelines for how and how not to read them. Ten of the most common misconceptions about evolutionary trees and their implications for understanding evolution are addressed.

Why Are Some Evolutionary Trees in Natural History Museums Prone to Being Misinterpreted?

Today, the picture of an evolutionary tree is a very well-known visual image. It is almost impossible to think of the ancestry and relationships of living beings without it. As natural history museums play a major role in the public understanding of evolution, they often present a wide variety of evolutionary trees. However, many studies have shown (Baum and Offner 2008; Baum et al. 2005; Catley and Novick 2008; Evans 2009; Gregory 2008; Matuk 2007; Meir et al. 2007b; Padian 2008) that even though evolutionary trees have the potential to engage visitors of natural history museums with the phenomena of evolution, many of them unwittingly might lead to misunderstandings about the process. As valuable research and educational institutions, one of the museum’s important missions should be the careful design of their exhibits on evolution considering, for example, common preconceptions visitors often bring, such as the notion that evolution is oriented from simple toward complex organisms (incarnating the idea of a single ladder of life amidst the extraordinary diversity of organisms) and that humans are at the pinnacle of the evolutionary story, as well as na?ve interpretations of phylogenies. Our aim in this article is to show from history where many of these misunderstandings come from and to determine whether five important Western natural history museums inadvertently present “problematic” evolutionary trees (which might lead to non-scientific notions).     

Characters Are Key: The Effect of Synapomorphies on Cladogram Comprehension

Cladograms, phylogenetic trees that depict evolutionary relationships among a set of taxa, are one of the most powerful predictive tools in modern biology. They are usually depicted in one of two formats—tree or ladder. Previous research (Novick and Catley 2007) has found that college students have much greater difficulty understanding a cladogram’s hierarchical structure when it is depicted in the ladder format. Such understanding would seem to be a prerequisite for successful tree thinking. The present research examined the effect of a theoretically guided manipulation—adding a synapomorphy on each branch that supports two or more taxa—on students’ understanding of the hierarchical structure of ladder cladograms. Synapomorphies are characters shared by a group of taxa due to inheritance from a common ancestor. Thus, their depiction on a cladogram may facilitate the understanding of evolutionary relationships. Students’ comprehension was assessed in terms of success at translating relationships depicted in the ladder format to the tree format. The results indicated that adding synapomorphies provided powerful conceptual scaffolding that improved comprehension for students with both weaker and stronger backgrounds in biology. For stronger background students, the benefit of adding synapomorphies to the ladders was comparable to that of approximately two hours of instruction in phylogenetics that emphasized the ladder format.     

Deep Phylogeny��How a Tree Can Help Characterize Early Life on Earth

The Darwinian concept of biological evolution assumes that life on Earth shares a common ancestor. The diversification of this common ancestor through speciation events and vertical transmission of genetic material implies that the classification of life can be illustrated in a tree-like manner, commonly referred to as the Tree of Life. This article describes features of the Tree of Life, such as how the tree has been both pruned and become bushier throughout the past century as our knowledge of biology has expanded. We present current views that the classification of life may be best illustrated as a ring or even a coral with tree-like characteristics. This article also discusses how the organization of the Tree of Life offers clues about ancient life on Earth. In particular, we focus on the environmental conditions and temperature history of Precambrian life and show how chemical, biological, and geological data can converge to better understand this history.

“You know, a tree is a tree.  How many more do you need to look at?”–Ronald Reagan (Governor of California), quoted in the Sacramento Bee, opposing expansion of Redwood National Park, March 3, 1966

The following article addresses a period in life most removed from life’s origins compared with other articles in this collection. The article discusses an advanced form of life that seems to have lived on the order of 3.5–4.0 billion years ago, around the time when life as we know it began to diversify in a Darwinian sense. The life from this geological period is located deep within an illustrated taxonomic tree of life. The hope is that by understanding how early life evolved, we can better understand how life originated. In this sense, the article attempts to travel backwards in time, starting from modern organisms, to understand life’s origin.The Darwinian concept of evolution suggests that all modern life shares a single common ancestor, often referred to as the last universal common ancestor (LUCA). Throughout evolutionary history, this ancestor has for the most part generated descendants as successive bifurcations in a tree-like manner. This so called Tree of Life, and phylogenetics in general provides much of the framework for the field of molecular evolution. Taxonomic trees allow us to better understand relationships and commonalities shared by life. For instance, a tree may tell us whether a trait or phenotype shared between two organisms is the result of shared-common ancestry (termed homologous traits) or whether the trait has evolved multiple times independent of ancestry (analogous traits such as wings).Taxonomic trees can be built using diverse sources of information. These can include morphological and phenotypic data at the macro-level down to DNA and protein sequence data at the micro-level. Ideally, trees built from multiple sources of input have identical taxonomic relationships and branching patterns, and such trees are said to be congruent. In practice, however, trees built from morphological data (say, presence or absence of wings) are often different than a tree built from molecular data (DNA or protein sequences). This requires the biologist to determine which of the two data sets is misleading and/or which taxonomic tree-building algorithm is most appropriate to use for a particular data set. Such an artform is common in the field of molecular evolution because rarely are trees congruent when built from two sources of input data.In light of this fact, we have provided the quote at the beginning of this article as a reflection about the field of molecular evolution and its interpretations of taxonomic trees. Although Reagan was not speaking about taxonomic trees in his quote, the same sort of disconnect exists between evolutionary biologists and molecular biologists (Woese and Goldenfeld 2009), as it did between conservationists and Ronald Reagan. A molecular biologist may be inclined to say that once you have seen one phylogenetic tree, you have seen them all. And in fairness, there is some validity to such a notion because historically a phylogenetic tree could not help a molecular biologist to better describe their system. An evolutionary biologist, however, will argue that individual trees have nuances that can dramatically alter our interpretation of evolutionary processes.We intend to show in this article that not all (taxonomic) trees look similar and describe identical evolutionary scenarios. We will discuss how our concept of the Tree of Life has changed over the past couple of decades, how trees can be interpreted, and what a tree can tell us about early life. In particular, the article will focus on the temperature conditions of early life because this topic has received much attention over the past few years as a direct result of improved DNA sequencing technology and a better understanding of molecular evolutionary processes. We will also describe how trees can be used to guide laboratory experiments in our attempt to understand ancient life. Lastly, we will discuss how phylogenetic trees will serve as the foundation for an “evolutionary synthetic biology” that should allow us to better understand the evolution of cellular pathways, macromolecular machines such as the ribosome, and other emergent properties of early life.     

The prior probabilities of phylogenetic trees

Bayesian methods have become among the most popular methods in phylogenetics, but theoretical opposition to this methodology remains. After providing an introduction to Bayesian theory in this context, I attempt to tackle the problem mentioned most often in the literature: the “problem of the priors”—how to assign prior probabilities to tree hypotheses. I first argue that a recent objection—that an appropriate assignment of priors is impossible—is based on a misunderstanding of what ignorance and bias are. I then consider different methods of assigning prior probabilities to trees. I argue that priors need to be derived from an understanding of how distinct taxa have evolved and that the appropriate evolutionary model is captured by the Yule birth–death process. This process leads to a well-known statistical distribution over trees. Though further modifications may be necessary to model more complex aspects of the branching process, they must be modifications to parameters in an underlying Yule model. Ignoring these Yule priors commits a fallacy leading to mistaken inferences both about the trees themselves and about macroevolutionary processes more generally.     

Fossil Horses, Orthogenesis, and Communicating Evolution in Museums

The 55-million-year fossil record of horses (Family Equidae) has been frequently cited as a prime example of long-term macroevolution. In the second half of the nineteenth century, natural history museum exhibits characteristically depicted fossil horses to be a single, straight-line (orthogenetic) progression from ancestor to descendent. By the beginning of the twentieth century, however, paleontologists realized that, rather than representing orthogenesis, the evolutionary pattern of fossil horses was more correctly characterized by a complexly branching phylogenetic tree. We conducted a systematic survey of 20 fossil horse exhibits from natural history museums in the United States. Our resulting data indicate that more than half (55%) of natural history museums today still depict horse evolution as orthogenetic, despite the fact that paleontologists have known for a century that the actual evolutionary pattern of the Family Equidae is branching. Depicting outmoded evolutionary patterns and concepts via museum exhibits, such as fossils horses exemplifying orthogenesis, not only communicates outmoded knowledge but also likely contributes to general misconceptions about evolution for natural history museum visitors.     

Apes and Tricksters: The Evolution and Diversification of Humans’ Closest Relatives

The evolutionary history of humans comprises an important but small branch on the larger tree of ape evolution. Today’s hominoids—gibbons, orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans—are a meager representation of the ape diversity that characterized the Old World from 23–5 million years ago. In this paper, I briefly review this evolutionary history focusing on features important for understanding modern ape and human origins. As the full complexity of ape evolution is beyond this review, I characterize major geographic, temporal, and phylogenetic groups using a few flagship taxa. Improving our knowledge of hominoid evolution both complicates and clarifies studies of human origins. On one hand, features thought to be unique to the human lineage find parallels in some fossil ape species, reducing their usefulness for identifying fossil humans. On the other hand, the Miocene record of fossil apes provides an important source for generating hypotheses about the ancestral human condition; this is particularly true given the dearth of fossils representing our closest living relatives: chimpanzees and gorillas.     

An Alternative Approach: Teaching Evolution in a Natural History Museum Through the Topic of Vector-Borne Disease

Museums play a vitally important role in supporting both informal and formal education and are important venues for fostering public understanding of evolution. The Yale Peabody Museum has implemented significant education programs on evolution for many decades, mostly focused on the museum’s extensive collections that represent the past and present tree of life. Twelve years ago, the Peabody began a series of new programs that explored biodiversity and evolution as it relates to human health. Modern evolutionary theory contributes significantly to our understanding of health and disease, and medical topics provide many excellent and relevant examples to explore evolutionary concepts. The Peabody developed a program on vector-borne diseases, specifically Lyme disease and West Nile virus, which have become endemic in the United States. Both of these diseases have complex transmission cycles involving an intricate interplay among the pathogen, host, and vector, each of which is subject to differing evolutionary pressures. Using these stories, the museum explored evolutionary concepts of adaptation (e.g., the evolution of blood feeding), coevolution (e.g., the “arms race” between host and vector), and variation and selection (e.g., antibiotic resistance) among others. The project included a temporary exhibition and the development of curriculum materials for middle and high school teachers and students. The popularity of the exhibit and some formal evaluation of student participants suggested that this educational approach has significant potential to engage wide audiences in evolutionary issues. In addition it demonstrated how natural history museums can incorporate evolution into a broad array of programs.     

Taking Students to the Museum: Interview with Warren D. Allmon, Judy Diamond, and Martin Weiss

Three museum professionals with extensive expertise in informal science education about evolution—Warren D. Allmon, Judy Diamond, and Martin Weiss—are interviewed about the interaction of teachers and natural history museums and science centers in improving the effectiveness of evolution education.     

Evolutionary Trends

The occurrence, generality, and causes of large-scale evolutionary trends—directional changes over long periods of time—have been the subject of intensive study and debate in evolutionary science. Large-scale patterns in the history of life have also been of considerable interest to nonspecialists, although misinterpretations and misunderstandings of this important issue are common and can have significant implications for an overall understanding of evolution. This paper provides an overview of how trends are identified, categorized, and explained in evolutionary biology. Rather than reviewing any particular trend in detail, the intent is to provide a framework for understanding large-scale evolutionary patterns in general and to highlight the fact that both the patterns and their underlying causes are usually quite complex.

Identifying the rooted species tree from the distribution of unrooted gene trees under the coalescent

Gene trees are evolutionary trees representing the ancestry of genes sampled from multiple populations. Species trees represent populations of individuals—each with many genes—splitting into new populations or species. The coalescent process, which models ancestry of gene copies within populations, is often used to model the probability distribution of gene trees given a fixed species tree. This multispecies coalescent model provides a framework for phylogeneticists to infer species trees from gene trees using maximum likelihood or Bayesian approaches. Because the coalescent models a branching process over time, all trees are typically assumed to be rooted in this setting. Often, however, gene trees inferred by traditional phylogenetic methods are unrooted. We investigate probabilities of unrooted gene trees under the multispecies coalescent model. We show that when there are four species with one gene sampled per species, the distribution of unrooted gene tree topologies identifies the unrooted species tree topology and some, but not all, information in the species tree edges (branch lengths). The location of the root on the species tree is not identifiable in this situation. However, for 5 or more species with one gene sampled per species, we show that the distribution of unrooted gene tree topologies identifies the rooted species tree topology and all its internal branch lengths. The length of any pendant branch leading to a leaf of the species tree is also identifiable for any species from which more than one gene is sampled.     

How to Identify and Interpret Evolutionary Tree Diagrams

Evolutionary trees are key tools for modern biology and are commonly portrayed in textbooks to promote learning about biological evolution. However, many people have difficulty in understanding what evolutionary trees are meant to portray. In fact, some ideas that current professional biologists depict with evolutionary trees are neither clearly defined nor conveyed to students. To help biology teachers and students learn how to more deeply interpret, understand and gain knowledge from diagrams that represent ancestor–descendant relationships and evolutionary lineages, we describe the different rooted and unrooted evolutionary tree visualisations and explain how they are best read. Examples from a study of tree-shaped diagrams in the journal Science are used to illustrate how to distinguish evolutionary trees from other tree-shaped representations that are easily misunderstood as visualising evolutionary relationships. We end by making recommendations for how our findings may be implemented in teaching practice in this important area of biology education.     

Untangling the contribution of characters to evolutionary relationships: a case study using fossils,morphology, and Genes

Given the importance of phylogenetic trees to understanding common ancestry and evolution, they are a necessary part of the undergraduate biology curriculum. However, a number of common misconceptions, such as reading across branch tips and understanding homoplasy, can pose difficulties in student understanding. Students also may take phylogenetic trees to be fact, instead of hypotheses. Below we outline a case study that we have used in upper-level undergraduate evolution and ichthyology courses that utilizes shark teeth (representing fossils), body characters, and mitochondrial genes. Students construct their own trees using freely available software, and are prompted to compare their trees with a series of questions. Finally, students explore homoplasy, polytomies, and trees as hypotheses during a class discussion period. This case study gives students practice with tree-thinking, as well as demonstrating that tree topology is reliant on which characters and tree-building algorithms are used.     

Transforming Our Thinking about Transitional Forms

A common misconception of evolutionary biology is that it involves a search for “missing links” in the history of life. Relying on this misconception, antievolutionists present the supposed absence of transitional forms from the fossil record as evidence against evolution. Students of biology need to understand that evolution is a branching process, paleontologists do not expect to find “missing links,” and evolutionary research uses independent lines of evidence to test hypotheses and make conclusions about the history of life. Teachers can facilitate such learning by incorporating cladistics and tree-thinking into the curriculum and using evograms to focus on important evolutionary transitions.     

Up from the Ape: the Spitzer Hall of Human Origins at the American Museum of Natural History

The American Museum of Natural History in New York has a rich history of explaining evolution through its displays and educational programs. For much of this history, there has been a permanent hall dedicated to human evolution and its related disciplines. Different versions of these halls have informed tens of millions of visitors, and today’s offering is one of the world’s newest, opened in 2007 and named the Anne and Bernard Spitzer Hall of Human Origins. The hall’s design is radical in that it starts by giving molecular genetics and the fossil record equal billing and thus provides the visitor with two independent but highly complementary lines of evidence for our own evolution. Other parts of the hall are innovative in that they stress taxonomic diversity in the fossil record as much as the more traditional chronological “story” of human evolution that is usually found in museum exhibits. The hall is also unique in that it incorporates a fully operational teaching laboratory within its architectural footprint, which provides educators with the chance to seamlessly integrate hands-on lab sessions and the surrounding exhibits as teaching aids.     

Teaching Tree-Thinking to Undergraduate Biology Students

Evolution is the unifying principle of all biology, and understanding how evolutionary relationships are represented is critical for a complete understanding of evolution. Phylogenetic trees are the most conventional tool for displaying evolutionary relationships, and “tree-thinking” has been coined as a term to describe the ability to conceptualize evolutionary relationships. Students often lack tree-thinking skills, and developing those skills should be a priority of biology curricula. Many common student misconceptions have been described, and a successful instructor needs a suite of tools for correcting those misconceptions. I review the literature on teaching tree-thinking to undergraduate students and suggest how this material can be presented within an inquiry-based framework.     

Very early evolution from the perspective of microbial ecology

The universal ancestor at the root of the species tree of life depicts a population of organisms with a surprising degree of complexity, posessing genomes and translation systems much like that of microbial life today. As the first life forms were most likely to have been simple replicators, considerable evolutionary change must have taken place prior to the last universal common ancestor. It is often assumed that the lack of earlier branches on the tree of life is due to a prevalence of random horizontal gene transfer that obscured the delineations between lineages and hindered their divergence. Therefore, principles of microbial evolution and ecology may give us some insight into these early stages in the history of life. Here, we synthesize the current understanding of organismal and genome evolution from the perspective of microbial ecology and apply these evolutionary principles to the earliest stages of life on Earth. We focus especially on broad evolutionary modes pertaining to horizontal gene transfer, pangenome structure, and microbial mat communities.     

Don’t Call it “Darwinism”

Evolutionary biology owes much to Charles Darwin, whose discussions of common descent and natural selection provide the foundations of the discipline. But evolutionary biology has expanded well beyond its foundations to encompass many theories and concepts unknown in the 19th century. The term “Darwinism” is, therefore, ambiguous and misleading. Compounding the problem of “Darwinism” is the hijacking of the term by creationists to portray evolution as a dangerous ideology—an “ism”—that has no place in the science classroom. When scientists and teachers use “Darwinism” as synonymous with evolutionary biology, it reinforces such a misleading portrayal and hinders efforts to present the scientific standing of evolution accurately. Accordingly, the term “Darwinism” should be abandoned as a synonym for evolutionary biology.     

Getting a better picture of microbial evolution en route to a network of genomes

Most current thinking about evolution is couched in the concept of trees. The notion of a tree with recursively bifurcating branches representing recurrent divergence events is a plausible metaphor to describe the evolution of multicellular organisms like vertebrates or land plants. But if we try to force the tree metaphor onto the whole of the evolutionary process, things go badly awry, because the more closely we inspect microbial genomes through the looking glass of gene and genome sequence comparisons, the smaller the amount of the data that fits the concept of a bifurcating tree becomes. That is mainly because among microbes, endosymbiosis and lateral gene transfer are important, two mechanisms of natural variation that differ from the kind of natural variation that Darwin had in mind. For such reasons, when it comes to discussing the relationships among all living things, that is, including the microbes and all of their genes rather than just one or a select few, many biologists are now beginning to talk about networks rather than trees in the context of evolutionary relationships among microbial chromosomes. But talk is not enough. If we were to actually construct networks instead of trees to describe the evolutionary process, what would they look like? Here we consider endosymbiosis and an example of a network of genomes involving 181 sequenced prokaryotes and how that squares off with some ideas about early cell evolution.     

Monoplacophorans and the Origin and Relationships of Mollusks

The story of the discovery and study of the Monoplacophora (or Tryblidia) and how they have contributed to our understanding of the evolution of the Mollusca highlights the importance of integrating data from the fossil record with the study of living forms. Monoplacophora were common in the early Paleozoic and were thought to have become extinct during the Devonian Period, approximately 375 Mya. In the mid 1950s, they were recovered from abyssal depths off of Costa Rica and were immediately heralded as a “living fossil.” The living specimens confirmed that some of the organs (kidneys, heart, and gills) were repeated serially, just like the shell muscles that had been observed in fossil specimens. This supported the hypothesis that they were closely related to other segmented organisms such as annelids and arthropods. Today, there are 29 described living species and a growing body of work examining their anatomy, phylogeny, and ecology. Additional fossil specimens have also been discovered, and what was once thought to be a possible missing link between annelid worms and mollusks now appears to be a highly specialized branch of the molluscan tree that tells us little about the ancestral mollusk condition. However, some assumptions and generalizations from those early days still remain—such as the abyssal nature of the living species. A large part of the evolutionary history of the lineage remains to be discovered and will likely prove more complicated and interesting than afforded by the living fossil designation.