Taxonomy and Phylogeny Can Yield Comparable Results in Comparative Paleontological Analyses

Area of Science:

• Paleontology
• Evolutionary Biology
• Systematics

Background:

• Extensive fossil records and taxonomic classifications exist for many extinct taxa without formal phylogenetic analysis.
• Traditional taxonomy may or may not accurately reflect evolutionary history.

Purpose of the Study:

• To evaluate if existing taxonomic classifications can serve as reliable substitutes for phylogenetic trees derived from matrix-based analyses.
• To assess the utility of taxonomy-based phylogenies (TBPs) versus cladogram-based phylogenies (CBPs) for macroevolutionary studies.

Main Methods:

• Collected data for 52 animal clades with fossil representatives, comparing available cladograms and pre-cladistic taxonomies.
• Quantified differences between time-scaled phylogenies using the matching cluster distance metric.
• Simulated trait data to estimate phylogenetic signal, PGLS, mode of evolution, and extinction clustering on both taxonomic and cladistic trees.

Main Results:

• Taxonomies generally approximate the topology of inferred cladograms, reflecting evolutionary relationships.
• Results from TBPs co-varied with CBPs for most evolutionary analyses, but individual comparisons can be misleading.
• The relative length of terminal branches significantly influences the shared information and performance of TBPs and CBPs.

Conclusions:

• Under specific circumstances, taxonomies can be cautiously used as proxies for phylogenetic trees, especially when formal analyses are lacking.
• This approach enables the testing of macroevolutionary hypotheses in previously inaccessible fossil groups.
• Careful consideration of data and potential biases is crucial when employing taxonomy-based phylogenies.