Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

COMBINED AND SEPARATE ANALYSES OF MORPHOLOGICAL AND MOLECULAR DATA IN THE PLANT FAMILY RUBIACEAE

COMBINED AND SEPARATE ANALYSES OF MORPHOLOGICAL AND MOLECULAR DATA IN THE PLANT FAMILY RUBIACEAE Abstract— The Rubiaceae are one of the largest of the families of angiosperms, with over 10000 species. The tribal and subfamilial classification is provisional due to the lack of phylogenetic hypotheses. The present study of the Rubiaceae is based on 33 genera and three data sets, one morphological and two molecular from chloroplast DNA, restriction sites andrbcL sequences. There is much congruence between the morphological and the molecular data sets, but also conflict. For parsimony reasons, the best phylogenetic hypothesis is a tree based on an analysis of the combined data sets. The so‐called “total evidence” criterion for the combined analysis is simply a reiteration of the principle of parsimony. In this particular study, the classification would be almost the same even if based on the separate analyses instead of the combined. Despite the inapplicability of consensus trees or trees from separate analyses for phylogenetic hypotheses and classification, separate analyses may provide important information. It is the best way to reveal conflicts between different data sets. Knowledge of the conflicts can promote further detailed investigation in order to improve understanding of characters and phylogenetic hypotheses. In this study, the tribe Vanguerieae provides such an example; morphological data support a position in the subfamily Cinchonoideae, but DNA and a tree based on the combined data support a position in subfamily Ixoroideae. The tribe's position in the morphological tree is probably due to missing information concerning the correct pollen presentation system. Bootstrap fractions and K. Bremer's branch support values are used to evaluate the stability of particular nodes in the trees. Interestingly these values are not always correlated, e.g. in the morphological tree, the node with the highest branch support value has very low bootstrap fraction. The reasons for these differences are unclear, but large differences are presumably more likely to occur on short branches. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Cladistics Wiley

COMBINED AND SEPARATE ANALYSES OF MORPHOLOGICAL AND MOLECULAR DATA IN THE PLANT FAMILY RUBIACEAE

Bremer, Birgitta
Cladistics , Volume 12 (1) – Jan 1, 1996
Download PDF
20 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/combined-and-separate-analyses-of-morphological-and-molecular-data-in-Ht2BTCfQZl

References (52)

Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
Copyright © 1996 Wiley Subscription Services
ISSN
0748-3007
eISSN
1096-0031
DOI
10.1111/j.1096-0031.1996.tb00191.x
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Abstract— The Rubiaceae are one of the largest of the families of angiosperms, with over 10000 species. The tribal and subfamilial classification is provisional due to the lack of phylogenetic hypotheses. The present study of the Rubiaceae is based on 33 genera and three data sets, one morphological and two molecular from chloroplast DNA, restriction sites andrbcL sequences. There is much congruence between the morphological and the molecular data sets, but also conflict. For parsimony reasons, the best phylogenetic hypothesis is a tree based on an analysis of the combined data sets. The so‐called “total evidence” criterion for the combined analysis is simply a reiteration of the principle of parsimony. In this particular study, the classification would be almost the same even if based on the separate analyses instead of the combined. Despite the inapplicability of consensus trees or trees from separate analyses for phylogenetic hypotheses and classification, separate analyses may provide important information. It is the best way to reveal conflicts between different data sets. Knowledge of the conflicts can promote further detailed investigation in order to improve understanding of characters and phylogenetic hypotheses. In this study, the tribe Vanguerieae provides such an example; morphological data support a position in the subfamily Cinchonoideae, but DNA and a tree based on the combined data support a position in subfamily Ixoroideae. The tribe's position in the morphological tree is probably due to missing information concerning the correct pollen presentation system. Bootstrap fractions and K. Bremer's branch support values are used to evaluate the stability of particular nodes in the trees. Interestingly these values are not always correlated, e.g. in the morphological tree, the node with the highest branch support value has very low bootstrap fraction. The reasons for these differences are unclear, but large differences are presumably more likely to occur on short branches.

Journal

Cladistics – Wiley

Published: Jan 1, 1996

There are no references for this article.