Molecular phylogenies map to biogeography better than morphological ones

Area of Science:

• Evolutionary Biology
• Systematics
• Phylogenetics

Background:

• Phylogenetic relationships are primarily inferred from morphological and molecular data.
• Molecular phylogenies are often preferred over morphological ones when conflicts arise, a preference largely supported by simulations.
• Empirical validation of molecular phylogenies' superiority, particularly against morphological data, remains limited.

Purpose of the Study:

• To empirically assess the accuracy of molecular versus morphological phylogenies.
• To compare the fit of phylogenetic trees derived from morphological and molecular data with biogeographic distributions and fossil records.
• To investigate the influence of research time on biogeographic congruence in phylogenetic analyses.

Main Methods:

• Compared 48 pairs of morphological and molecular phylogenetic trees.
• Utilized biogeographic distributions as a primary data source for assessing phylogenetic accuracy.
• Employed fossil first occurrences (stratigraphic congruence) as a secondary data source.
• Analyzed the congruence between phylogenetic trees and biogeographic data over research time.

Main Results:

• On average, molecular phylogenetic trees demonstrated a better fit to biogeographic data compared to morphological trees.
• Biogeographic congruence showed a tendency to increase over research time for both data types.
• No significant difference was found in stratigraphic congruence between morphological and molecular trees.

Conclusions:

• Molecular data generally provides a more accurate reflection of biogeographic history than morphological data.
• Morphological data's utility as a test for molecular hypotheses needs careful consideration due to potential homoplasy.
• Findings have implications for phylogenetic reconstruction, especially for fossil groups lacking molecular data.