Methods in Vicariance Biogeography: Assessment of the Implementations of Assumptions 0, 1, and 2

As we have argued previously, for the valid derivation of general area cladograms in vicariance biogeography, two requirements should be met. First, sets of area cladograms derived under assumptions 0, 1 and 2 should be inclusive (requirement I). Second, general area cladograms should be based on area cladograms, for different monophyletic groups, derived under the same assumption (requirement II). We now assess for their actual implementation of assumptions A0, A1, and A2 and for the extent to which they meet requirements I and II, the following methods (and correlated computer programs): Component Compatibility Analysis (CAFCA), Brooks Parsimony Analysis (PAUP), Component Analysis (Component 1.5), Reconciled Tree Analysis (Component 2.0), and Three Area Statement Analysis (TAS). For this purpose we use empirical (Heterandria, Xiphophorus, Cyttaria, Eriococcus/Madarococcus) and theoretical data sets. All programs appear to violate, to a different degree, requirement I (deriving inclusive sets of area cladograms under assumptions) when dealing with sympatric taxa under A1 or A2. Dealing with sympatric taxa a posteriori only prevents this violation. All programs examined appear to meet requirement II (deriving general area cladograms under a single assumption).