Parsimony Analysis as a Specific Kind of Homology Estimation and the Implications for Character Weighting

“Remane-Hennigian systematists” still reject parsimony analysis for phylogenetics, because homology or apomorphy analyses are not included. In contrast, “pattern cladists” regard homology as a deductive concept after applying a parsimony test of character congruence. However, as in molecular phylogeny, selection of “good” characters is always done on the basis of ana priorihomology analysis. The distribution criterion of homology—“homologous characters have identical or hierarchical distribution”—is the basis of parsimony analysis. Because this criterion also might fail in cases of genealogical reticulation or concerted homoplasy, character congruence is not a strict test but another probabilistic criterion of homology. A synthetic approach is proposed for phenotypic analysis with application ofa prioricriteria of homology. The resultinga prioriprobabilities of homology serve as criteria for selection and weighting of characters (very low = not selected/poor/mediocre/good/Dollo characters). After application of a parsimony algorithm the final cladogram decides homology estimations.     

Homologies in phylogenetic analyses—concept and tests

Analyzing morphological characters in a phylogenetic context comprises two steps, character analysis and cladistic analysis, which are equivalent to two independent tests for hypotheses on homology. The concept of homology concerns comparable parts of the same or different organisms if their correspondences are the consequence of the same genetic or epigenetic information, and consequently of the same origin. The concept of homology is more inclusive than the character concept. Characters are seen as parts of transformation series. In the first step of morphological character analyses correspondences and non-correspondences between two characters are analyzed. A range of different examination methods and accurate study contribute to the severity of test. The hypothesis that two characters are homologous is corroborated if the correspondences outweigh the non-correspondences because the non-correspondences contradict the homology hypothesis whereas the correspondences contradict the analogy hypothesis. Complex characters possess a higher empirical content than less complex characters because they are more severely testable. The cladistic analysis tests characters against other characters which have all passed the first test. Characters which are congruent with the most parsimonious topology are further corroborated; incongruent characters are not seen as ‘falsified’ but as not further corroborated and subject to re-analysis. To test both homologies and topologies repeatedly is consistent with Popperian testability, and it is in such cycles of research that hypotheses will be critically re-evaluated.     

Convergence and parallelism: is a new life ahead of old concepts?

In comparative biology, character observations initially separate similar and dissimilar characters. Only similar characters are considered for phylogeny reconstruction; their homology is attested in a two‐step process, firstly a priori of phylogeny reconstruction by accurate similarity statements, and secondly a posteriori of phylogeny analysis by congruence with other characters. Any pattern of non‐homology is then a homoplasy, commonly, but vaguely, associated with “convergence”. In this logical scheme, there is no way to analyze characters which look similar, but cannot meet usual criteria for homology statements, i.e., false similarity detected a priori of phylogenetic analysis, even though such characters may represent evolutionarily significant patterns of character transformations. Because phylogenies are not only patterns of taxa relationships but also references for evolutionary studies, we propose to redefine the traditional concepts of parallelism and convergence to associate patterns of non‐homology with explicit theoretical contexts: homoplasy is restricted to non‐similarity detected a posteriori of phylogeny analysis and related to parallelism; non‐similarity detected a priori of phylogenetic analysis and necessarily described by different characters would then correspond to a convergence event s. str. We propose to characterize these characters as heterologous (heterology). Heterology and homoplasy correspond to different non‐similarity patterns and processes; they are also associated with different patterns of taxa relationships: homoplasy can occur only in non‐sister group taxa; no such limit exists for heterology. The usefulness of these terms and concepts is illustrated with patterns of acoustic evolution in ensiferan insects. © The Willi Hennig Society 2005.     

The derivation, utility and implications of a divergence index for the fynbos genus Leucadendron (Proteaceae)

The derivation, utility, and implications of a divergence index for the fynbos genus Leucadendron (Proteaceae). The genus Leucadendron is useful for a phylogenetic study because it contains many species (79), is morphologically very diverse and appears to have diverged early on in the history of the family in Africa. Polarity of many characters was determined by outgroup analysis and the ontogenetic method. Exceptionally high levels of convergence made the determination of the phylogeny of the subsections problematic. An index, which is the sum of weight of all derived characters present in a species, was determined.
The genus should be removed from subfamily Aulacinae and placed closer to the Leucospermum 'alliance'. I suggest an arid temperate, shrub-like origin for the African Proteaceae, which is in contrast to some published viewS. Modifications to accepted concepts of fruit homology and evolutionary trends such as pollination and dispersal are presented for the family. The divergence index, if used as a 'morphological clock', appears to be useful for further biogeographic and ecological analyses.     

Field homology: a meaningless concept.

Most biological homologues involve comparison of single characters in two or more taxa. It is possible, however, to recognize homologous characters between two or more taxa that involve the transformation of one character into many characters or many characters into one character. This type of homology is recognized as field homology and it has been widely used in comparative neuroanatomy. The emergence of the cladistic analysis of embryonic stages in the development of neural characters, however, strongly suggests that field homology is a meaningless concept. When it appears necessary to recognize field homologues, it is because comparisons are being made at an inappropriate level within a given biological hierarchy. Furthermore, recognition of field homologues restricts evolutionary mechanisms to a single mechanism of parcellation as defined by Ebbesson.     

Congruence,non‐homology,and the phylogeny of basal turtles

Joyce, W.G. and Sterli J. 2010. Congruence, non‐homology, and the phylogeny of basal turtles.–Acta Zoologica (Stockholm) Modern cladistic analysis is characterized by the assembly of increasingly larger data sets coupled with the use of congruence as the final test of homology. Some critics of this development have recently called for a return to more detailed primary homology analysis while questioning the utility of congruence. This discussion appears to be central to the debate regarding the phylogenetic relationships of basal turtles, as the large data sets developed by us have been criticized recently for utilizing poorly constructed characters and including too many homoplasy‐prone characters. Our analysis of this critique reveals that (1) new information regarding poorly understood taxa has a greater impact on the outcome of turtle phylogenies than the characters under dispute; (2) most current turtle phylogenies differ in taxon sampling, not character sampling, and so it appears illogical to condemn a particular analysis for its character sampling; (3) even evolutionary taxonomists should agree that key characters utilized to resolve basal turtle relationships cannot be thought to be ‘infallible’; (4) whereas various criteria provide positive evidence for homology, only congruence provides positive evidence for non‐homology; and (5) a stalemate between conflicting camps within a congruence frame work is preferable to the ad hoc dismissal of data sets, because authoritative statements are untestable.     

Hox genes, homology and axis formation—The application of morphological concepts to evolutionary developmental biology

This article focuses on the interphyletic comparison of gene expression patterns. By means of the hypothesis of the inversion of the dorsoventral axis during the evolution of the Bilateria, it is demonstrated, that evolutionary developmental biologists use similarities in spatial and temporal gene expression patterns as evidence for the formulation of hypotheses of homology concerning either developing structures or body regions. The molecular genetic and morphogenetic evidence used is discussed within the framework of a cladistic-phylogenetic analysis based on the phylogenetic tree of the Bilateria. I argue that similarity of spatial and temporal gene expression patterns is not a sufficient criterion for homology inference. Therefore, gene expression patterns should be coded as characters. Their homology should be tested in concert with other characters.

Furthermore, it is demonstrated, that spatial and temporal similar gene expression patterns, indicating similar molecular genetic mechanisms, were interpreted as an analytical criterion of homology, offering the possibility to identify similar structures. In contrast to this, the evolutionary developmental biolgists have not developed a causal-analytically extended concept of shape, from which a causal-analytical concept of homology could be deduced. Instead, the homology concept from evolutionary morphology is used.     

The effects of increasing genetic distance on alignment of,and tree construction from,rDNA internal transcribed spacer sequences

We examined how alignment of internal transcribed spacers of rDNA in fungi and plants changes with increasing genetic distance by successive removal of sequences from each data set followed by realignment and phylogenetic analysis. Increasing genetic distance can negatively affect phylogenetic reconstruction in two ways. First, it may cause errors in the alignment and therefore the homology hypotheses of the sequence characters. Second, it may cause errors in the homology assessments of character states because of multiple hits on individual branches. These two causes of error in phylogenetic inference were distinguished from one another in our analysis. The errors in alignment caused by increasing genetic distance were primarily due to inserting too few gaps and inserting gaps at the wrong positions. Errors in tree resolution, topology, and/or branch-support values were more often caused by multiple hits than by misaligned positions. This suggests that increasing genetic distance negatively affects our primary homology assessments of character states more severely than our primary homology assessments of characters. We suggest that increasing taxon sampling with the aim of subdividing long branches is a strategy for obtaining reliable alignments.     

PARSIMONY, HOMOLOGY AND THE ANALYSIS OF MULTISTATE CHARACTERS

Abstract— The order of states in a transformation series describes an internested set of synapomorphies. States adjacent to each other in the transformation series thus share a degree of homology not found in the other states. Whether the level of homology is relatively apomorphic is determined by rooting the order with outgroup comparison. The analysis of state order is a homology problem and is solved with a two-step process using similarity and congruence with other characters as criteria. Other methods that have been proposed (e.g. transformation series analysis, non-additive analysis, morphocline analysis, ontogenetic analysis) fail to apply both similarity and congruence, and thus cannot be used independently for determining character state order.     

Phylogeny of Symphytognathidae s.l. (Araneae, Araneoidea)

The paper presents a phylogenetic analysis of Symphytognathidae sensu lato (= sensu Forster 1959): Anapidae, Micropholcommatidae, Mysmenidae and Symphytognathidae sensu stricto. These taxa include the smallest known spiders. Several authors have suggested that their similarities are merely the convergent result of reduction and loss (simplifications, minimization of organs). The data matrix comprises 80 characters scored for 12 ingroup and two outgroup taxa. The value of reduction characters is discussed in general, and the evidence regarding symphytognathids in particular is reviewed. In this case, homology explains the data better than convergence. Although Symphytognathidae s.l . is, in fact, based mainly on characters that might have accompanied miniaturization, the taxon is most probably monophyletic. Anapidae as currently defined is paraphyletic. As it constitutes, together with Micropholcommatidae, a well supported monophyletic group, the latter is herewith synonymised with the former. Mysmenidae should be relimited by transferring four Old World genera to a new family, Synaphridae. Sympyhtognathidae s.s. is also monophyletic, even though the main synapomorphy, fused chelicerae, also occurs in Mysmenidae.     

Homologies in Cambrian Onychophora

Marine animals related to Recent onychophorans form a significant component in Cambrian faunas. Twelve characters are analysed for homologies in the seven best known Cambrian onychophorans. New morphological evidence and homology analyses for several characters indicate an anteroposterior reversal of Hallucigenia and Microdictyon . Proposed expansion of the trunk in Microdietyon during compaction is rejected. A jaw is tentatively identified in Onychodictyon . The shape of the annulations and the disposition of the tenth leg pair in Aysheaia are reinterpreted, and the suggestion of two somites to the first appendage pair is rejected. A suggested morphocline may mirror the phylogeny of the group. The taxonomic confusion surrounding the supposed radiolarian family Eoconchariidae is cleared     

Parallelism,deep homology,and evo‐devo

Parallelism has been the subject of a number of recent studies that have resulted in reassessment of the term and the process. Parallelism has been aligned with homology leaving convergence as the only case of homoplasy, regarded as a transition between homologous and convergent characters, and defined as the independent evolution of genetic traits. Another study advocates abolishing the term parallelism and treating all cases of the independent evolution of characters as convergence. With the sophistication of modern genomics and genetic analysis, parallelism of characters of the phenotype is being discovered to reflect parallel genetic evolution. Approaching parallelism from developmental and genetic perspectives enables us to tease out the degree to which the reuse of pathways represent deep homology and is a major task for evolutionary developmental biology in the coming decades.     

Phenotypic characters of static homology increase phylogenetic stability under direct optimization of otherwise dynamic homology characters

Direct optimization of unaligned sequence characters provides a natural framework to explore the sensitivity of phylogenetic hypotheses to variation in analytical parameters. Phenotypic data, when combined into such analyses, are typically analyzed with static homology correspondences unlike the dynamic homology sequence data. Static homology characters may be expected to constrain the direct optimization and thus, potentially increase the similarity of phylogenetic hypotheses under different cost sets. However, whether a total-evidence approach increases the phylogenetic stability or not remains empirically largely unexplored. Here, I studied the impact of static homology data on sensitivity using six empirical data sets composed of several molecular markers and phenotypic data. The inclusion of static homology phenotypic data increased the average stability of phylogenetic hypothesis in five out of the six data sets. To investigate if any static homology characters would have similar effect, the analyses were repeated with randomized phenotypic data, and with one of the molecular markers fixed as static homology characters. These analyses had, on average, almost no effect on the phylogenetic stability, although the randomized phenotypic data sometimes resulted in even higher stability than empirical phenotypic data. The impact was related to the strength of the phylogenetic signal in the phenotypic data: higher average jackknife support of the phenotypic tree correlated with stronger stabilizing effect in the total-evidence analysis. Phenotypic data with a strong signal made the total-evidence trees topologically more similar to the phenotypic trees, thus, they constrained the dynamic homology correspondences of the sequence data. Characters that increase phylogenetic stability are particularly valuable for phylogenetic inference. These results indicate an important role and additive value of phenotypic data in increasing the stability of phylogenetic hypotheses in total-evidence analyses.     

Anatomy of a cladistic analysis

The sequential stages culminating in the publication of a morphological cladistic analysis of weevils in the Exophthalmus genus complex (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Entiminae) are reviewed, with an emphasis on how early‐stage homology assessments were gradually evaluated and refined in light of intermittent phylogenetic insights. In all, 60 incremental versions of the evolving character matrix were congealed and analysed, starting with an assembly of 52 taxa and ten traditionally deployed diagnostic characters, and ending with 90 taxa and 143 characters that reflect significantly more narrow assessments of phylogenetic similarity and scope. Standard matrix properties and analytical tree statistics were traced throughout the analytical process, and series of incongruence length indifference tests were used to identify critical points of topology change among succeeding matrix versions. This kind of parsimony‐contingent rescoping is generally representative of the inferential process of character individuation within individual and across multiple cladistic analyses. The expected long‐term outcome is a maturing observational terminology in which precise inferences of homology are parsimony‐contingent, and the notions of homology and parsimony are inextricably linked. This contingent view of cladistic character individuation is contrasted with current approaches to developing phenotype ontologies based on homology‐neutral structural equivalence expressions. Recommendations are made to transparently embrace the parsimony‐contingent nature of cladistic homology.     

Rejecting "the given" in systematics

How morphology and systematics come together through morphological analysis, homology hypotheses and phylogenetic analysis is a topic of continuing debate. Some contemporary approaches reject biological evaluation of morphological characters and fall back on an atheoretical and putatively objective (but, in fact, phenetic) approach that defers to the test of congruence for homology assessment. We note persistent trends toward an uncritical empiricism (where evidence is believed to be immediately “given” in putatively theory‐free observation) and instrumentalism (where hypotheses of primary homology become mere instruments with little or no empirical foundation for choosing among competing phylogenetic hypotheses). We suggest that this situation is partly a consequence of the fact that the test of congruence and the related concept of total evidence have been inappropriately tied to a Popperian philosophy in modern systematics. Total evidence is a classical principle of inductive inference and does not imply a deductive test of homology. The test of congruence by itself is based philosophically on a coherence theory of truth (coherentism in epistemology), which is unconcerned with empirical foundation. We therefore argue that coherence of character statements (congruence of characters) is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition to support or refute hypotheses of homology or phylogenetic relationship. There should be at least some causal grounding for homology hypotheses beyond mere congruence. Such causal grounding may be achieved, for example, through empirical investigations of comparative anatomy, developmental biology, functional morphology and secondary structure. © The Willi Hennig Society 2006.     

Rebuilding ships while at sea—Character individuality,homology, and evolutionary innovation

How novel traits originate in evolution is still one of the most perplexing questions in Evolutionary Biology. Building on a previous account of evolutionary innovation, I here propose that evolutionary novelties are those individualized characters that are not homologous to any characters in the ancestor. To clarify this definition, I here provide a detailed analysis of the concepts of “character individuality” and “homology” first, before addressing their role for our understanding of evolutionary innovation. I will argue (1) that functional as well as structural considerations are important for character individualization; and (2) that compositional (structural) and positional homology need to be clearly distinguished to properly describe the evolutionary transformations of hierarchically structured characters. My account will therefore integrate functional and structural perspectives and put forward a new multi-level view of character identity and transformation.     

Characters: the central mystery of taxonomy and systematics

Taxonomic and systematic theory is hopelessly confused because the term character has nine different, previously confused, meanings. After a historical analysis, it is shown that some form pairs, one used in taxonomy (= operational identification of phenetic patterns of character x individual spread) and the other in systematics (= theoretical analysis of patterns of taxonomy). On the basis of a stratigramy model, names are given to each usage and are defined for taxonomy, then systematics, as necessary: component : (tax.) a defined bit-or-piece of one individual (no syst. meaning); homology : (tax.) conceptual identity of components of several individuals, attributable (syst.) to common ancestry; homology avatar : (tax.) case of recognized homology which (syst.) shows broad phylogenetic continuity (e.g. eye) (= character sensu Sokal and Sneath); homolostratum/homology state : (tax.) specified condition of a homology avatar whose distribution (syst.) enables cladogenetic happenings to be identified (e.g. colour:red/green/blue/etc.) (= character state of Sokal and Sneath); character sensu stricto : (tax.) homolostratum limited to a taxon which (syst.), with hierarchy, identifies chronological sequences of most cladogenetic happenings; taxonomoids : (tax.) mixed group of homolostrata, including yet unknown characters, that identifies a taxon and so (syst.) has same role as characters (= roughly symplesiomorphies); Ante- (Ah) and Post-(Ph) happening characters : (tax.) the hierarchy levels immediately above and below an empty level which (syst.) reveal a cladistic happening (= roughly one usage of synapomorphies and apomorphies).     

Reconciling taxonomy and phylogeny in the bristleworm family Eunicidae (polychaete,Annelida)

Eunicid annelids inhabit diverse marine habitats worldwide, have ecological and economic importance and have been pictured in the news as giant predator worms. They compose a traditional stable taxon recently supported as monophyletic but characterized by plesiomorphies. Most genera within the family have been recovered as paraphyletic in previous studies. We present a phylogenetic hypothesis for eunicid based on molecular (COI, 16S rDNA, 18S rDNA) and morphological data (213 characters), including an explicit attempt to account for serial homology. Eunicidae as well as monophyletic genera Marphysa sensu stricto and Lysidice is redefined based on synapomorphies. Nematonereis is synonymized to Lysidice. Leodice and Nicidion are resurrected to name monophyletic groups including species previously included in Eunice and Marphysa sensu lato. Traditional diagnostic characters such as the absence/presence of peristomial cirri, lateral antennae and branchiae are homoplasies and not informative at the generic level. Different coding of traditional characters (i.e. articulation of prostomial appendages) and novel characters of prostomial features and regionalization of the body support the monophyly of the family and genera level clades. Thus, the phylogenetic hypothesis presented here and the evolution of characters provided background information for taxonomic changes yielding evolutionary meaningful classification and diagnoses for the family and genera.     

Similarity

Recent debates concerning conflicting hypotheses of higher-level phylogeny such as the sister-group relationships of tetrapods, turtles, birds and snakes, serve as examples in the analysis of the nature of morphological evidence as it is currently used in phylogeny reconstruction. We note a recent shift of emphasis towards ever-larger data matrices, which may come at the cost of detailed character analysis and argumentation. Because the assessment of morphological characters necessarily entails a conceptual element of abstraction, there is also a threat that preconceived notions of phylogeny influence character analysis. Because the test of congruence does not address character analysis in itself, we argue that character hypotheses, i.e. primary conjectures of homology, need to be testable, and potentially refutable, in their own right. We demonstrate the use of classical criteria of homology (topological relations and/or connectivity, in conjunction with the subsidiary criteria of special similarity and intermediate forms) in the test, and refutation, of morphological characters. Rejection of the classical criteria of homology in the test of morphological character hypotheses requires the formulation of alternative methods of test and potential falsification of morphological characters that have so far not been proposed. © 2002 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society , 2002, 75 , 59–82.     

The fine structure of ‘homology’

There is long-standing conflict between genealogical and developmental accounts of homology. This paper provides a general framework that shows that these accounts are compatible and clarifies precisely how they are related. According to this framework, understanding homology requires both (a) an abstract genealogical account that unifies the application of the term to all types of characters used in phylogenetic systematics and (b) locally enriched accounts that apply only to specific types of characters. The genealogical account serves this unifying role by relying on abstract notions of ‘descent’ and ‘character’. As a result, it takes for granted the existence of such characters. This requires theoretical justification that is provided by enriched accounts, which incorporate the details by which characters are inherited. These enriched accounts apply to limited domains (e.g. genes and proteins, or body parts), providing the needed theoretical justification for recognizing characters within that domain. Though connected to the genealogical account of homology in this way, enriched accounts include phenomena (e.g. serial homology, paralogy, and xenology) that fall outside the scope of the genealogical account. They therefore overlap, but are not nested within, the genealogical account. Developmental accounts of homology are to be understood as enriched accounts of body part homology. Once they are seen in this light, the conflict with the genealogical account vanishes. It is only by understanding the fine conceptual structure undergirding the many uses of the term ‘homology’ that we can understand how these uses hang together.