The scientific status of metazoan cladistics: why current research practice must change

Jenner, R. A. (2004). The scientific status of metazoan cladistics: why current research practice must change. —Zoologica Scripta, 33, 293–310. Metazoan phylogenetics is bustling with activity. The use of comprehensive morphological data sets in recent phylogenetic analyses of the Metazoa indicates that morphological evidence continues to play a key role in the reconstruction of metazoan deep history. In this paper I review the scientific status of morphological metazoan cladistics from the perspective of cladistic research cycles. Each research cycle consists of three main steps: (1) the compilation of a data matrix (2) the simultaneous evaluation of all possible cladograms in a character congruence test, and (3) the assessment of the relationship between evidence and hypothesis after finding the optimal tree. I identify a striking discrepancy between the sophistication of the analysis of given data sets (Step 2), and their compilation and the interpretation of the results (Steps 1 and 3). The latter two steps deserve far greater attention than is current practice. Uncritical and nonexplicit character selection, character coding, and character scoring seriously compromise Step 1. Careful comparative morphological study prior to data matrix construction is necessary to remedy this problem in future cladistic analyses. Step 2 is the locus of most recent advances in metazoan cladistics through the increasing availability of computing power, and the development of increasingly efficient phylogenetic software that allows analysis of large data sets. Failure to identify problems and errors generated in Step 1 of the research cycle is testament to the general failure of Step 3. Consequently, recent progress in metazoan cladistics is primarily analytical, while the only empirical anchor of the discipline receives surprisingly little attention. Not surprisingly, the first generation of modern metazoan phylogeneticists used computers principally as a relatively quick and easy means to generate abundant phylogenies from morphological data. The next phase should build on this foundation by critically testing these alternative hypotheses by a thorough qualitative reassessment and elaboration of morphological data matrices, and a more critical approach to data selection. A rigorous research program for metazoan cladistics can only be established when the cladistic research cycle is properly completed, and when subsequent research cycles are effectively linked to previous efforts.     

Problems with the use of cladistic analysis in palaeoanthropology

Cladistic analysis is a popular method for reconstructing evolutionary relationships on the human lineage. However, it has limitations and hidden assumptions that are often not considered by palaeoanthropologists. Some researchers who are opposed to its use regard cladistics as the preferred method for taxonomic «splitters» and claim it has lead to a revitalisation of typology. Typology remains a part of human evolutionary studies, regardless of the acceptance or use of cladistics. The assumption/preference for «splitting» over «lumping» in cladistics (alpha) taxonomy and the general failure to evaluate (post-hoc) such taxonomies have served to reinforce this assertion.

Researchers have also adopted a number of practices that are logically untenable or introduce considerable error. The evolutionary trend of human encephalisation, apparently isometric with body size, and concurrent reduction in the gut and masticatory apparatus, suggests continuous cladistic characters are biased by problems of body size.

The method suffers a logical weakness, or circularity, leading to bias when characters with multiple states are used. Coding of such characters can only be done using prior criteria, and this is usually done using an existing phylogenetic scheme. Another problem with coding character states is the handling of variation within species. While this form of variation is usually ignored by palaeoanthropologists, when characters are recognised as varying, their treatment as a separate state adds considerable error to cladograms.

The genetic proximity of humans, chimpanzees and gorillas has important implications for cladistic analyses. It is argued that chimpanzees and gorillas should be treated as ingroup taxa and an alternative outgroup such as orangutans should be used, or an (hypothetical) ancestral body plan developed. Making chimpanzees and gorillas ingroup taxa would considerably enhance the biological utility of anthropological cladograms.

All published human cladograms fail to meet standard quality criteria indicating that none of them may be considered reliable. The continuing uncertainty over the number and composition of fossil human species is the largest single source of error for cladistics and human phylogenetic reconstruction.     

OUTGROUPS AND ONTOGENY

Abstract— Common themes in some recent expositions of character phylogeny are attempts to prove that outgroup comparison is a method of the greatest generality, and that the ontogenetic criterion reduces to outgroup comparison. Another common theme is that pattern cladistics is wrongheaded in suggesting that ontogenetic data have a unique value for studies of character phylogeny. Analysis of particular examples that have been offered as proof of the themes shows them to be flawed and without significance. Arguments against pattern cladistics and the relevance of ontogeny stem from a concern for ideological purity and not for objective appraisal of relevant evidence.     

When molecules and morphology clash: reconciling conflicting phylogenies of the Metazoa by considering secondary character loss

Molecular and morphological data sets have yielded conflicting phylogenies for the Metazoa. So far, no general explanation for the existence of this conflict has been suggested. However, I believe that a neglected aspect of metazoan cladistics has introduced a systematic and substantial bias into morphological phylogenetic analyses. Most characters used for metazoan cladistics are coded as binary absence/presence characters. For most of these characters, the absence states are assumed to be uninformative default plesiomorphies, if they are defined at all. This character coding strategy could seriously underestimate the number of informative apomorphic absences or secondary character losses. Because nodes in morphological metazoan phylogenies are typically supported by relatively small numbers of characters each with a potentially strong impact on tree topology, failure to distinguish between primary absence and secondary loss of characters before a cladistic analysis may mislead morphological cladistics. This may falsely suggest conflict with molecular phylogenies, which are not sensitive to this bias. To test the existence of this bias, I compare the phylogenetic placement of a variety of metazoan taxa in molecular and morphological trees. In all instances investigated here, phylogenetic conflict can be resolved by allowing for secondary loss of morphological characters, which were assumed to be primitively absent in cladistic analyses. These findings suggest that we should be cautious in interpreting the results of morphological metazoan cladistic analyses and additionally illustrate the value of a more functional approach to comparative morphology in certain circumstances.     

Is there a direct ontogenetic criterion in systematics?

Much recent literature focuses on whether ontogenetic information can be used as a direct criterion for determining the polarity of character trasformations in systematic analysis. This paper reviews the relevant literature and concludes that the ontogenetic criterion is dependent on parsimony rather than the sequence observed during ontogeny. It is not, therefore, based on the discredited arguments of recapitulation. From the perspective of phyologenetic systematics the ontogenetic criterion is a valid means of polarizing character transformations that represents a special case of a broader methodology involving parsimony. The alternative perspective perspective of patttern cladistics holds that polarity should be contained within the data and not imposed upon it. Thus, ontogeny is not required to polarize characters, but ontogenetic information can generate unequivocal character interpretations in terms of the relative generality of related attributes, and in the sense that absence precedes presence. Furthermore, ontogeny is central to systematics, providing empirical evidence of character transformation, information on the whole life cycle and an escape from systematics being teleologically related to phylogenetic inference and the theory of evolution.     

HYBRIDS AND PHYLOGENETIC SYSTEMATICS I. PATTERNS OF CHARACTER EXPRESSION IN HYBRIDS AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS FOR CLADISTIC ANALYSIS

Interspecific hybridization is considered common among plants, but the methods of cladistic systematics produce only divergently branching phylogenetic hypotheses and thus cannot give the correct phylogeny if an analysis includes hybrids. Empirical studies of the impact of known hybrids on phylogenetic analysis are lacking, and are necessary to begin to understand the problems that we face if hybrids are often included in cladistic analysis. Examination of the implications of hybrids for cladistics must begin with patterns of character expression in hybrids. This study includes 17 hybrids and their nine parental taxa that are Central American species of Aphelandra (Acanthaceae), analyzed using a set of 50 morphological characters. The hybrids are overwhelmingly intermediate as quantitatively scored for phylogenetic analysis. They express maternal and paternal, and primitive and derived characters in equal frequencies, showing no evidence of predominant inheritance of derived character states as has been assumed by most cladists who have considered hybrids theoretically. Because of their known genetic constitution, hybrids were useful in homology assessment and ordering character states. The parental character set was generally robust, but some changes were made to reflect the special evidence offered by the hybrids. These hybrids suggest that the inclusion of hybrids in phylogenetic analysis will not lead to unresolved cladograms with rampant homoplasy, as has been predicted by other authors. Instead, the patterns of character inheritance in these hybrids lead to the prediction that a hybrid will be placed by phylogenetic analysis as a basal lineage to the clade that includes its most derived parent, with relatively little effect on homoplasy. These predictions will be evaluated by incorporation of the hybrids in phylogenetic analyses, to be reported in a subsequent paper.     

Cladistic analysis of molecular and morphological data

Considerable progress has been made recently in phylogenetic reconstruction in a number of groups of organisms. This progress coincides with two major advances in systematics: new sources have been found for potentially informative characters (i. e., molecular data) and (more importantly) new approaches have been developed for extracting historical information from old or new characters (i. e., Hennigian phylogenetic systematics or cladistics). The basic assumptions of cladistics (the existence and splitting of lineages marked by discrete, heritable, and independent characters, transformation of which occurs at a rate slower than divergence of lineages) are discussed and defended. Molecular characters are potentially greater in quantity than (and usually independent of) more traditional morphological characters, yet their great simplicity (i. e., fewer potential character states; problems with determining homology), and difficulty of sufficient sampling (particularly from fossils) can lead to special difficulties. Expectations of the phylogenetic behavior of different types of data are investigated from a theoretical standpoint, based primarily on variation in the central parameter λ (branch length in terms of expected number of character changes per segment of a tree), which also leads to possibilities for character and character state weighting. Also considered are prospects for representing diverse yet clearly monophyletic clades in larger-scale cladistic analyses, e. g., the exemplar method vs. “compartmentalization” (a new approach involving substituting an inferred “archetype” for a large clade accepted as monophyletic based on previous analyses). It is concluded that parsimony is to be preferred for synthetic, “total evidence” analyses because it appears to be a robust method, is applicable to all types of data, and has an explicit and interpretable evolutionary basis. © 1994 Wiley-Liss, Inc.     

中国尖音库蚊复合组支序系统学的研究

本文应用支序系统学原理和方法,采用形态和生态性状,对尖音库蚊复合组的４个成员进行了支序系统学研究,提出在尖音库蚊复合组中,尖音库蚊是原始的类群,骚扰库蚊为较进化的类群,而致倦库蚊和淡色库蚊是最为进化的类群。     

A Review on Cladistics

The theoretical bases and approaches of cladistics and some specific problems that, directly or indirectly, rely on cladistic analysis for their revolution, are outlined and discussed. Seven sections comprise this paper: a ) the philosophical foundation of cladistics; b) the theoretical tenets of cladistics; c) the operational procedure of cladisties; d) three schools of classification; e) cladistics and biogeography; f) cladistics and hybrid recognition; and g) is cladistic systematics a scientific theory ? Considerations of scientific methodology involve philosophical questions. From this point, Popper'falsificationism serves a good foundation. Popper emphasizes that all scientific knowledge is hypothetical-deductive, consisting of general statements (theories) that can never be confirmed or verified but only falsified. The theories, that can be tested most effectively, are preferable. Cladistics, aiming at generating accurately expressed and strictly testable systematic hypotheses, is well compatible with this requirement. The principles central to the cladistic theory and methodology are: the Principle of Synapomorphy; the Principle of Strict Monophyly; and the Principle of Strict Parsimony. The first requires forming nested groups by nesting statements about shared evolutionary novelties (synapomorphy) postulated from observed similarities and is the primary one. The second is mainly methodological, subject to modification and compromise. The principle of strict parsimony specifies the most preferable hypothesis (namely the one exhibiting the most congruence in the synapomorphy pattern). The operational procedure that might be followed in formulating and testing hypotheses of the synapomorphy pattern (the cladogram itself) consists of five steps. The erections of monophyletic groups, to a greater or lesser extent, rely on the hypothesis of the previous systematic studies and is the starting point for cladistic analysis. Character analysis, which focuses on character distribution and determination of the polarities, decides the reconstructed phylogeny. A detailed discussion on the methodological principles for identifying transformation sequence is presented. Many algorithms have been designated to infer the cladogram, and are basically of parsimony techniques and Compatibility techiques. The thus yielded cladograms, with their expected pattern of congruent synapomorphies, are tests of a particular hypothesis of synapomorphy and reciprocally synapomorphies are tests of cladistic hypothesis (cladogram). Such reciprocity is a strong stimulus to profound understanding on phylogenetic process and phyletic relationships. The cladogram and the Linnaean classification have the identical logic structure and the set-membership of the two can be made isomorphic. There are three principal approaches to biological classification : cladistics, phenetics and evolutionary classification. Cladistics is the determination of the branching pattern of evolution, and in the context of classification, the development of nested sets based on cladograms. Phenetics is the classification by overall similarities, without regard to evolutionary considerations. Evolutionary classification attempts to consider all meaningful aspects of phylogeny and to use these for making a classification. The last approach has been done intuitively, without explicit methods. An enumeration of their differences and a discussion on their relative merits are presented. Three theoretical approaches have been proposed for interpreting biogeographical history: the phylogenetic theory of biogeography, classical evolutionary biogeography and vicariance biogeography. The former two show some similarities in that they usually look upon biogeography in terms of centers of origin and dispersal from the centers. But the first puts a strong emphasis on the construction of hypotheses about the phylogenetic relationships of the organisms in question and the subsequent inference of their geographic relationships; the second advocates a theory which does not have a precise deductive link with phylogenetic construction and often results in wildly narratative-type hypotheses. The vicariance approach de-emphasizes the concepts of centers of origin and dispersal and attempts to analyse distribution patterns in terms of subdivision (vicariance) of ancestral biotas. The development of the theory of plate tectonics and its universal acceptance enormously stimulate biogeographers to look at the world's continents and oceans from a mobilist point, which, along with the establishment of the rigorous tool of the phylogenetic analysis (cladistics), profoundly reshapes the above three theories. Hybridization and polyploidy are outstanding features of many plant groups. But hybridization, or reticulate evolution, is inconsistent with the basic concepts of cladistics which is an ever-branching pattern. Cladists have suggested several approaches. One of them analyses all the taxa by a standard cladistic procedure and closely examines the cladograms for polytomies and character conflicts that may indicate possible hybrids. Such generated hypothesis of hybridization can be corroborated or falsified by other forms of data, such as distribution, polyploidy, karyotype and pollen fertility. There are three criteria to justify a theory to be scientific: a) whether it is a theory composed of hypotheses strictly falsifiable; b) whether it has predictive effect; and c) whether it has a explanatory value. Cladistic systematics aims at generating cladograms, which are hypotheses of the nested pattern of synapomorphy, phylogenetic process and phyletic relationships, susceptible to testing by postulated synapomorphies. The predictive effect of systematics relies on the acceptance of hypotheses of congruence about the correlation of characters, which has been well founded. For non-systematic biologists, phylogenetic classification can be used as axiom to form a preliminary and fundamental explanation.     

分支分类学中和谐性概念与和谐性分析方法

和谐性是分支分类学中的一个基本概念。本文给出一个和谐性的数学定义,称为Kexue和谐性。并在Kexue和谐性的基础上开发出一个新的和谐性分析方法。并对该方法在分支分类研究中的应用进行讨论。     

From Haeckel’s phylogenetics and Hennig’s cladistics to the method of maximum likelihood: Advantages and limitations of modern and traditional approaches to phylogeny reconstruction

The maximum likelihood and Bayesian methods are based on parametric models of character evolution. They assume that if we know these models as well as distribution of character states in studied organisms, we can infer the probability of different phylogenetic trajectories leading from ancestors to modern forms. In fact, these methods are mathematized variants of the traditional Haeckel’s approach to phylogeny reconstruction. In contrast to classical and parsimonious cladistics, they infer phylogenies without such limitations as necessity of strictly dichotomous evolution, exclusion of plesiomorphic characters, and acceptance of only holophyletic taxa. They assume that evolution may be reticulated, any homologous characters—both apomorphic and plesiomorphic—can be used for inferring phylogenies, and interpretation of evolutionary lineages as taxa is optional. Thus, the main difference between the new and more traditional approaches to phylogeny reconstruction lies not in the characters used (molecular or morphological) but in the methodology of analysis. It must be admitted that a revolution began in phylogenetics 10–20 years ago. However, the fundamental changes in phylogenetics have been carried out so calmly and neatly by the people who started this revolution, that many systematists still do not realize their importance.     

POLYMORPHIC TAXA, MISSING VALUES AND CLADISTIC ANALYSIS

Abstract Missing values have been used in cladistic analyses when data are unavailable, inapplicable or sometimes when character states are variable within terminal taxa. The practice of scoring taxa as having "missing values" for polymorphic characters introduces errors into the calculation of cladogram lengths and consistency indices because some character change is hidden within terminals. Because these hidden character steps are not counted, the set of most parsimonious cladograms may differ from those that would be found if polymorphic taxa had been broken into monomorphic subunits. In some cases, the trees found when polymorphisms are scored as missing values may not include any of the most parsimonious trees found when the data are scored properly. Additionally, in some cases, polymorphic taxa may be found to be polyphyletic when broken into monomorphic subunits; this is undetected when polymorphisms are treated as missing. Because of these problems, terminal units in cladistic analysis should be based on unique, fixed combinations of characters. Polymorphic taxa should be subdivided into subunits that are monomorphic for each character used in the analysis. Disregarding errors in topology, the additional hidden steps in a cladogram in which polymorphisms are scored as missing can be calculated by a simple formula, based on the observation that if it is assumed that polymorphic terminals include all combinations of character states, 2 ^p − 1 additional steps are required for each taxon in which p polymorphic binary characters are scored as missing values. Thus, when several polymorphisms are scored as missing in the same taxon, very large errors can be introduced into the calculation of tree length.     

Systematics as science: A response to Cronquist

Our reply to the commentary on cladistics presented by Cronquist (1987) is aimed at four issues:

1. the application of scientific principles in systematics;
2. the recognition that the analysis of pattern is a vital precursor to any consideration of evolutionary process. A priori judgements of evolutionary process are unnecessary for the generation of informative systematic hypotheses which are chosen for their ability to explain the patterns of character distributions rather than for compatibility with any particular preconceived ideas about evolution;
3. that phenetic concepts such as overall similarity, grades, gaps, and degree of divergence, if included in methods of phylogenetic inference, will give erroneous results. Paraphyletic and polyphyletic groups must, consequently, be rejected from systematics since they have no rational empirical basis for recognition;
4. the fact that many of the problems of phylogenetic analysis attributed by Cronquist to cladistics are common to all systematic methods but that these can be dealt with by the application of such principles as parsimony, synapomorphy, and strict monophyly.

     

Towards simultaneous analysis of morphological and molecular data in Hymenoptera

Principles and methods of simultaneous analysis in cladistics are reviewed, and the first, preliminary, analysis of combined molecular and morphological data on higher level relationships in Hymenoptera is presented to exemplify these principles. The morphological data from Ronquist et al . (1999) matrix, derived from the character diagnoses of the phylogenetic tree of Rasnitsyn (1988) , are combined with new molecular data for representatives of 10 superfamilies of Hymenoptera by means of optimization alignment. The resulting cladogram supports Apocrita and Aculeata as groups, and the superfamly Chrysidoidea, but not Chalcidoidea, Evanioidea, Vespoidea and Apoidea.     

The role of parsimony,outgroup analysis,and theory of evolution in phylogenetic systematics

It is argued that both the principle of parsimony and the theory of evolution, especially that of natural selection, are essential analytical tools in phylogenetic systematics, whereas the widely used outgroup analysis is completely useless and may even be misleading. In any systematic analysis, two types of patterns of characters and character states must be discriminated which are referred to as completely and incompletely resolved. In the former, all known species are presented in which the characters and their states studied occur, whereas in the latter this is not the case. Dependent on its structure, a pattern of characters and their states may be explained by either a unique or by various conflicting, equally most parsimonious hypotheses of relationships. The so-called permutation method is introduced which facilitates finding the conflicting, equally most parsimonious hypotheses of relationships. The utility of the principle of parsimony is limited by the uncertainty as to whether its application in systematics must refer to the minimum number of steps needed to explain a pattern of characterts and their states most parsimoniously or to the minimum number of evolutionary events assumed to have caused these steps. Although these numbers may differ, the former is usually preferred for simplicity. The types of outgroup analysis are shown to exist which are termed parsimony analysis based on test samples and cladistic type of outgroup analysis. Essentially, the former is used for analysing incompletely resolved patterns of characters and their states, the latter for analysing completely resolved ones. Both types are shown to be completely useless for rejecting even one of various conflicting, equally most parsimonious hypotheses of relationships. According to contemporary knowledge, this task can be accomplished only by employing the theory of evolution (including the theory of natural selection). But even then, many phylogenetic-systematic problems will remain unsolved. In such cases, arbitrary algorithms like those offered by phenetics can at best offer pseudosolutions to open problems. Despite its limitations, phylogenetic systematics is superior to any kind of aphylogenetic systematics (transformed cladistics included) in approaching a (not: the) “general reference system” of organisms.     

ON CONSENSUS, COLLAPSIBILITY, AND CLADE CONCORDANCE

Abstract — Consensus in cladistics is reviewed. Consensus trees, which summarize the agreement in grouping among a set of cladograms, are distinguished from compromise trees, which may contain groups that do not appear in all the cladograms being compared. Only a strict or Nelson tree is an actual consensus. This distinction has implications for the concept of support for cladograms: only those branches supported under all possible optimizations are unambiguously supported. We refer to such cladograms as strictly supported, in contrast to the semistrictly (ambiguously) supported cladograms output by various current microcomputer programs for cladistic analysis. Such semistrictly supported cladograms may be collapsed, however, by a variety of options in various programs. Consideration of collapsibility and optimization on multifurcations leads to some conclusions on the use of consensus. Consensus tree length provides information about character conflict that occurs between, not within, cladograms. We propose the clade concordance index, which employs the consensus tree length to measure inter-cladogram character conflict for all characters among a set of cladograms.     

Two issues in archaeological phylogenetics: taxon construction and outgroup selection

Cladistics is widely used in biology and paleobiology to construct phylogenetic hypotheses, but rarely has it been applied outside those disciplines. There is, however, no reason to suppose that cladistics is not applicable to anything that evolves by cladogenesis and produces a nested hierarchy of taxa. This includes cultural phenomena such as languages and tools recovered from archaeological contexts. Two methodological issues assume primacy in attempts to extend cladistics to archaeological materials: the construction of analytical taxa and the selection of appropriate outgroups. In biology the species is the primary taxonomic unit used, irrespective of the debates that have arisen in phylogenetic theory over the nature of species. Also in biology the phylogenetic history of a group of taxa usually is well enough known that an appropriate taxon can be selected as an outgroup. No analytical unit parallel to the species exists in archaeology, and thus taxa have to be constructed specifically for phylogenetic analysis. One method of constructing taxa is paradigmatic classification, which defines classes (taxa) on the basis of co-occurring, unweighted character states. Once classes have been created, a form of occurrence seriation-an archaeological method based on the theory of cultural transmission and heritability-offers an objective basis for selecting an outgroup.     

Outline of an Explanatory Account of Cladistic Practice

A naturalistic account of the strengths and limitations of cladistic practice is offered. The success of cladistics is claimed to be largely rooted in the parsimony-implementing congruence test. Cladists may use the congruence test to iteratively refine assessments of homology, and thereby increase the odds of reliable phylogenetic inference under parsimony. This explanation challenges alternative views which tend to ignore the effects of parsimony on the process of character individuation in systematics. In a related theme, the concept of homeostatic property cluster natural kinds is used to explain why cladistics is well suited to provide a traditional, verbal reference system for the evolutionary properties of species and clades. The advantages of more explicitly probabilistic approaches to phylogenetic inference appear to manifest themselves in situations where evolutionary homeostasis has for the most part broken down, and predictive classifications are no longer possible.     

Problematic character coding methods in morphology and their effects

The effects of different coding practices in morphological phylogenetic analysis are well documented. In many cases, we can determine that certain practices can be regarded as undesirable and should be avoided. Certain coding practices do not correctly translate the expected information to the cladistic algorithm. It may go unnoticed that expressions of character information in character lists, which may be entirely logical to any reader, do not necessarily reflect the mathematics employed by a phylogenetic algorithm. Despite a wealth of literature on coding procedures and documentation of these issues, problematic character coding practices are still common. A review is provided of different coding and character formulation practices, particularly relating to multistate character information that may either: (1) lead to a failure to capture grouping information implied in the character list; (2) cause problematic weighting or spuriously high certainty in particular optimizations; and (3) impose congruence artificially, by linking more than one variable character to a particular state. Each of these is reviewed and presented with a hypothetical example. Recommendations for avoiding these pitfalls are described in light of how parsimony algorithms work with character data. Character lists must be drawn up not only to present character variation logically, but also with consideration for how computer algorithms implement cladistic logic. The widespread use of problematic character coding procedures may account for some of the perceived problems with morphological data. Therefore, an exploration of the effects of these methods and standardization of methods should be a goal for the very near future. © 2011 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2011, 104 , 489–498.