On quality of evidence in phylogeny reconstruction: a reply to Zrzavý's defence of the 'Ecdysozoa' hypothesis

Zrzavý’s arguments against the critical analyses of data supporting the Ecdysozoa hypothesis (Wägele et al., J. Zool. Syst. Evol. Res. 37, 211–223, 1999) are discussed. Zrzavý does not understand that the same basic principle of a priori weighting can be applied to sequence data as well as to morphological characters. Quality of evidence is the same as probability of homology, which is estimated from the number of discernible identical details. In sequences it is the number of identical nucleotides. Spectral analyses, dismissed by Zrzavý, visualize patterns of putative homologies present in alignments and also the number of positions supporting splits by chance alone. In cases in which old phylogenetic signals for a given monophylum are eroded in a gene, plesiomorphies and chance patterns will have strong influence on tree topologies and spectra. If plesiomorphies are a cause of errors, the addition of taxa that shorten internal branches is a remedy, although, in many cases such taxa may be extinct. The place of a priori estimations of data quality in a sequence of steps necessary for a phylogenetic analysis is shown. Morphological complexity is used as a proxy for a complex genetic basis and is used as a major criterion to compare characters of the Ecdysozoa and the Articulata. The details associated with the character ‘complex cuticle’ are discussed. Neither moulting nor the known components of the cuticle are novelties occurring only in Ecdysozoa. A published total evidence analysis is used to show that the number of coded characters does not necessarily reflect the quality of the data set. Zrzavý’s misunderstanding of the role of evolutionary scenarios is clarified and the importance of the use of additional biological data for plausibility arguments is explained. Plausibility arguments in favour of the Articulata hypothesis rely on facts found in functional morphology and in the fossil record. Zrzavý’s critique follows the actual mainstream but does not uncover logical mistakes or erroneous data analyses in the work of 86 . It is concluded that the Articulata hypothesis is a well‐founded alternative to the Ecdysozoa; it is based on much better morphological evidence and supported by plausibility arguments that currently do not exist for the Ecdysozoa.