When are phylogenetic analyses misled by convergence? A case study in Texas cave salamanders

John J Wiens, Paul T. Chippindale, David M. Hillis

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

135 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Convergence, i.e., similarity between organisms that is not the direct result of shared phylogenetic history (and that may instead result from independent adaptations to similar environments), is a fundamental issue that lies at the interface of systematics and evolutionary biology. Although convergence is often cited as an important problem in morphological phylogenetics, there have been few well-documented examples of strongly supported and misleading phylogenetic estimates that result from adaptive convergence in morphology. In this article, we propose criteria that can be used to infer whether or not a phylogenetic analysis has been misled by convergence. We then apply these criteria in a study of central Texas cave salamanders (genus Eurycea). Morphological characters (apparently related to cave-dwelling habitat use) support a clade uniting the species E. rathbuni and E. tridentifera, whereas mitochondrial DNA sequences and allozyme data show that these two species are not closely related. We suggest that a likely explanation for the paucity of examples of strongly misleading morphological convergence is that the conditions under which adaptive convergence is most likely to produce strongly misleading results are limited. Specifically, convergence is most likely to be problematic in groups (such as the central Texas Eurycea) in which most species are morphologically very similar and some of the species have invaded and adapted to a novel selective environment.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)501-514
Number of pages14
JournalSystematic Biology
Volume52
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 2003
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Urodela
salamanders and newts
caves
cave
case studies
phylogenetics
phylogeny
Mitochondrial DNA
Isoenzymes
Ecosystem
History
allozymes
mitochondrial DNA
taxonomy
nucleotide sequences
Biological Sciences
evolutionary biology
history
allozyme
salamander

Keywords

  • Adaptation
  • Convergence
  • Eurycea
  • Homoplasy
  • Molecular systematics
  • Morphology
  • Phylogeny
  • Salamanders

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

Cite this

When are phylogenetic analyses misled by convergence? A case study in Texas cave salamanders. / Wiens, John J; Chippindale, Paul T.; Hillis, David M.

In: Systematic Biology, Vol. 52, No. 4, 08.2003, p. 501-514.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Wiens, John J ; Chippindale, Paul T. ; Hillis, David M. / When are phylogenetic analyses misled by convergence? A case study in Texas cave salamanders. In: Systematic Biology. 2003 ; Vol. 52, No. 4. pp. 501-514.
@article{0da56680f5ad4826bf74dd43b16165f5,
title = "When are phylogenetic analyses misled by convergence? A case study in Texas cave salamanders",
abstract = "Convergence, i.e., similarity between organisms that is not the direct result of shared phylogenetic history (and that may instead result from independent adaptations to similar environments), is a fundamental issue that lies at the interface of systematics and evolutionary biology. Although convergence is often cited as an important problem in morphological phylogenetics, there have been few well-documented examples of strongly supported and misleading phylogenetic estimates that result from adaptive convergence in morphology. In this article, we propose criteria that can be used to infer whether or not a phylogenetic analysis has been misled by convergence. We then apply these criteria in a study of central Texas cave salamanders (genus Eurycea). Morphological characters (apparently related to cave-dwelling habitat use) support a clade uniting the species E. rathbuni and E. tridentifera, whereas mitochondrial DNA sequences and allozyme data show that these two species are not closely related. We suggest that a likely explanation for the paucity of examples of strongly misleading morphological convergence is that the conditions under which adaptive convergence is most likely to produce strongly misleading results are limited. Specifically, convergence is most likely to be problematic in groups (such as the central Texas Eurycea) in which most species are morphologically very similar and some of the species have invaded and adapted to a novel selective environment.",
keywords = "Adaptation, Convergence, Eurycea, Homoplasy, Molecular systematics, Morphology, Phylogeny, Salamanders",
author = "Wiens, {John J} and Chippindale, {Paul T.} and Hillis, {David M.}",
year = "2003",
month = "8",
doi = "10.1080/10635150309320",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "52",
pages = "501--514",
journal = "Systematic Biology",
issn = "1063-5157",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - When are phylogenetic analyses misled by convergence? A case study in Texas cave salamanders

AU - Wiens, John J

AU - Chippindale, Paul T.

AU - Hillis, David M.

PY - 2003/8

Y1 - 2003/8

N2 - Convergence, i.e., similarity between organisms that is not the direct result of shared phylogenetic history (and that may instead result from independent adaptations to similar environments), is a fundamental issue that lies at the interface of systematics and evolutionary biology. Although convergence is often cited as an important problem in morphological phylogenetics, there have been few well-documented examples of strongly supported and misleading phylogenetic estimates that result from adaptive convergence in morphology. In this article, we propose criteria that can be used to infer whether or not a phylogenetic analysis has been misled by convergence. We then apply these criteria in a study of central Texas cave salamanders (genus Eurycea). Morphological characters (apparently related to cave-dwelling habitat use) support a clade uniting the species E. rathbuni and E. tridentifera, whereas mitochondrial DNA sequences and allozyme data show that these two species are not closely related. We suggest that a likely explanation for the paucity of examples of strongly misleading morphological convergence is that the conditions under which adaptive convergence is most likely to produce strongly misleading results are limited. Specifically, convergence is most likely to be problematic in groups (such as the central Texas Eurycea) in which most species are morphologically very similar and some of the species have invaded and adapted to a novel selective environment.

AB - Convergence, i.e., similarity between organisms that is not the direct result of shared phylogenetic history (and that may instead result from independent adaptations to similar environments), is a fundamental issue that lies at the interface of systematics and evolutionary biology. Although convergence is often cited as an important problem in morphological phylogenetics, there have been few well-documented examples of strongly supported and misleading phylogenetic estimates that result from adaptive convergence in morphology. In this article, we propose criteria that can be used to infer whether or not a phylogenetic analysis has been misled by convergence. We then apply these criteria in a study of central Texas cave salamanders (genus Eurycea). Morphological characters (apparently related to cave-dwelling habitat use) support a clade uniting the species E. rathbuni and E. tridentifera, whereas mitochondrial DNA sequences and allozyme data show that these two species are not closely related. We suggest that a likely explanation for the paucity of examples of strongly misleading morphological convergence is that the conditions under which adaptive convergence is most likely to produce strongly misleading results are limited. Specifically, convergence is most likely to be problematic in groups (such as the central Texas Eurycea) in which most species are morphologically very similar and some of the species have invaded and adapted to a novel selective environment.

KW - Adaptation

KW - Convergence

KW - Eurycea

KW - Homoplasy

KW - Molecular systematics

KW - Morphology

KW - Phylogeny

KW - Salamanders

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0041568326&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0041568326&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/10635150309320

DO - 10.1080/10635150309320

M3 - Article

C2 - 12857641

AN - SCOPUS:0041568326

VL - 52

SP - 501

EP - 514

JO - Systematic Biology

JF - Systematic Biology

SN - 1063-5157

IS - 4

ER -