| Abstract: | If we adopt a statistical approach to systematics and recognize that phylogenies are estimated with error, then we can begin to explore statistically justified methods for testing a variety of comparative hypotheses, including those concerning the evolution of life-history characters and biogeography. In this paper I examine two biogeographic hypotheses concerning the rodent genus Microtus. Like many comparative hypotheses, these can be phrased so that each predicts the existence of a particular monophyletic group. Neither of the predicted groups appear on the single best phylogeny as determined by both Dollo parsimony and maximum likelihood analysis of restriction site maps of mitochondrial DNA. Simulation studies, however, suggest that often the best phylogeny from a single data set has only a low probability of being exactly correct. We must also examine those trees that, while not the single best-supported tree, are not rejected by the data. If we find the best phylogeny for which a hypothesis is satisfied, then likelihood methods can be used to test whether that phylogeny is significantly worse then the best tree overall. If that tree can be rejected, then so can the hypothesis. Computational constraints limit the use of likelihood methods for searching among topologies, so parsimony is used as a data exploratory tool. One of the predicted groups cannot be rejected, even though the most parsimonious tree which includes that group requires 11 more steps than does the most parsimonious tree. |
