4.5 Article

Model-based approach to test hard polytomies in the Eulaemus clade of the most diverse South American lizard genus Liolaemus (Liolaemini, Squamata)

期刊

ZOOLOGICAL JOURNAL OF THE LINNEAN SOCIETY
卷 174, 期 1, 页码 169-184

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/zoj.12231

关键词

deep coalescences; incomplete lineage sorting; phylogeny; species trees

类别

资金

  1. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cientificas y Tecnicas (CONICET) [PICT 2006506 ANPCYT-FONCYT, ANPCYT-FONCYT 33789]
  2. Brigham Young University Kennedy Center for International Studies, Department of Biology
  3. M. L. Bean Life Science Museum
  4. NSF-PIRE [OISE 0530267]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Lack of resolution in a phylogenetic tree is usually represented as a polytomy, and often adding more data (loci and taxa) resolves the species tree. These are the soft' polytomies, but in other cases additional data fail to resolve relationships; these are the hard' polytomies. This latter case is often interpreted as a simultaneous radiation of lineages in the history of a clade. Although hard polytomies are difficult to address, model-based approaches provide new tools to test these hypotheses. Here, we used a clade of 144 species of the South American lizard clade Eulaemus to estimate phylogenies using a traditional concatenated matrix and three species tree methods: *BEAST, BEST, and minimizing deep coalescences (MDC). The different species tree methods recovered largely discordant results, but all resolved the same polytomy (e.g. very short internodes amongst lineages and low nodal support in Bayesian methods). We simulated data sets under eight explicit evolutionary models (including hard polytomies), tested these against empirical data (a total of 14 loci), and found support for two polytomies as the most plausible hypothesis for diversification of this clade. We discuss the performance of these methods and their limitations under the challenging scenario of hard polytomies.(c) 2015 The Linnean Society of London

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据