DOCSLIB.ORG

Using Phylogenetic Comparative Methods to Understand Diversification and Geographic Range Evolution

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

University of Tennessee, Knoxville TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Doctoral Dissertations Graduate School 5-2017 Using Phylogenetic Comparative Methods To Understand Diversification and Geographic Range Evolution Kathryn Aurora Massana University of Tennessee, Knoxville, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss Part of the Biodiversity Commons, Computational Biology Commons, Evolution Commons, Integrative Biology Commons, and the Other Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Commons Recommended Citation Massana, Kathryn Aurora, "Using Phylogenetic Comparative Methods To Understand Diversification and Geographic Range Evolution. " PhD diss., University of Tennessee, 2017. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss/4481 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith a dissertation written by Kathryn Aurora Massana entitled "Using Phylogenetic Comparative Methods To Understand Diversification and Geographic Range Evolution." I have examined the final electronic copy of this dissertation for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the equirr ements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, with a major in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology. Brian C. O'Meara, Major Professor We have read this dissertation and recommend its acceptance: Daniel S. Simberloff, Sally P. Horn, James A. Fordyce, Haileab Hilafu Accepted for the Council: Dixie L. Thompson Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School (Original signatures are on file with official studentecor r ds.) Using Phylogenetic Comparative Methods To Understand Diversification and Geographic Range Evolution A Dissertation Presented for the Doctor of Philosophy Degree The University of Tennessee, Knoxville Kathryn Aurora Massana May 2017 Copyright © 2017 by Kathryn Aurora Massana All rights reserved. ii DEDICATION I dedicate my work to the loved ones that I lost during my time as a graduate student – my father and my beautiful parrot, Izze. You both left this world far too soon. Papi, gracias por siempre apoyarme cuando pequeña. Me diste los recursos para engendrar y motivar mis curiosidades científicas. Tu fé en mi me mantuvo enfocada. Izze, you were my strength. There was nothing I cared for more in this world. You gave me hope when there was none. You taught me how to fight. This world is a lonelier place without you. Your bouts of flight inspired my third chapter. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost, I would like to thank my family – for being supportive and helping me during the difficult times throughout my graduate career. Moms and Titi Linda, this thanks especially goes to you. Your encouragement helped me persevere through thick and thin. I could not have done it without you. You were both there when I most needed help and always offered me constant positivity, which helped me persevere through the difficult times I had during my graduate career. Thanks for always believing in me. Carlos y Maria Julia, los amo con todo mi corazón. Este doctorado lo hice para enseñarles que sus sueños si se pueden hacer realidad. I would like to thank my advisor, Brian O’Meara. Without him, none of this work would be possible. He devoted much time and patience to help me develop to the scientist I am today. To him, I am incredibly indebted. I would also like to thank my committee members, Sally Horn, Dan Simberloff, Jim Fordyce and Haileab Hilafu for always giving me excellent feedback to improve my work. The breadth of your knowledge helped me diversify my thoughts. I would also like to thank the members of the O’Meara lab that helped me formulate and improve my research: Jeremy Beaulieu, Nick Matzke, Nathan Jackson, Jenn Bosco, Rosana Zenil-Ferguson, Orlando Schwery and Sam Borstein. I would like to thank my collaborators for affording me the opportunity to improve my skills and share my ideas through lively discussions. Among these, Chuck Davis, Anouk van’t Padje, Fabiola Soto-Trejo, Jeremy Beaulieu and Nick Matzke. You guys are the best, I swear. I would like to acknowledge my fellowship sources, the Program for Excellence and Equity in Research, the National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis and the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Tennessee, which provided me with many professional development opportunities. I would also like to thank my iv numerous research funding sources: the Society for the Study of Evolution, the Society for Systematic Biology for funding my travel as an Invited Symposium Speaker to Evolution 2015 in Brazil, the National Science Foundation for several funds including the East Asia Pacific Summer Institutes Fellowship for travel to New Zealand, the University of Tennessee Chancellor’s Funds, the Graduate Researchers in Ecology, Behavior and Evolution for Travel Awards, the Tennessee Plant Research Center Travel Award to present my first talk at the Botany 2013 Conference and the Sharp Fund at the University of Tennessee. I would like to thank the Exotics Team and the rotation veterinary students at the University of Tennessee Veterinary Medical Center. They took excellent care of my beautiful parrot Izze while she was sick. Because of them, I got six more months to share with her. I’m confident that no other veterinary team could have done the same. Thank you all so much. In particular, I would like to recognize the following people: Jennilee Morrison, Carla Bernal, Michael Jones, Cheryl Greenacre, Patrick Sullivan, Julie Sheldon, Janet Jones and Lillian Gerhardt. Having you all there to care for Izze made all the difference in that period of my life. I also valued the interesting discussions we had about my graduate research with the team members (particularly with Drs. Jones and Morrison) while on my many visits. Lastly, I would like to thank my wonderful friends, in particular, Jenn Bosco, Sarah Sheffield and Camila Reyes. Jenn, you are my scientist and Statistics twin. We share many ideals and I wouldn’t change that for the world. You helped me get through. Without you I wouldn’t have been able to make it. For that I am eternally grateful. Thank you for always being there for me, I will miss you after graduation. Sarah, you are the kindest person I have ever met. You gave me advice and helped me persist through the hardest situations. Your humor helped me keep a positive outlook through any situation. You have no idea how much that helped me. I look up to v you in every sense. I’m jealous of your positivity. Camila, thank you for always being there for me. Don’t assume that because I mentioned you last that I care for you least. On the contrary, I hold a very high regard for you. I’m so happy I met you. Thank you, thank you, thank you for always being my rock. I can depend on you for anything. And for that, I will always be indebted to you. I’m also grateful for you always humoring my shenanigans. That’s hard to do. You are a special lady. I love you all. vi ABSTRACT Two key processes that have been modeled in a phylogenetic comparative framework are diversification and historical biogeography. Many questions arise on what process have shaped the abundance (or lack) of species we see today and what influences their survival and interconnectedness with other species. Many methods have been developed to answer these questions. Over the past several decades there has been a rise in parametric modeling and development of more adequate frameworks to answer biological questions of interest. However, many models still lack the incorporation of ecological, mainly biotic factors, which influence the evolution and ecology of species, while accounting for phylogenetic relatedness. In my dissertation, I studied a diverse set of questions in the realm of diversification and biogeography. I began my investigation by improving upon the widely used Dispersal-Extinction and Cladogenesis model and showing my method DEC* is a more adequate model that usually has better model fit and parameter estimation (Chapter 1). I then moved on to learn how a complex trait such a parasitism could influence the diversification of parasitic angiosperms with a wide array of diversification models in phylogenetics (Chapter 2). My results indicated that all parasitic flowering plants are not undergoing an evolutionary dead end, as many have postulated. In my final chapter, I merged trait and biogeographic evolution by assembling a model that would test the influence of body size in passerine birds. Additionally, I tested the influence of several traits upon the diversification of passerine birds (Chapter 3). The results showed that the larger body sizes are not associated with greater dispersal rates in passerines. According to the results, smaller birds have a greater rate of dispersal. I also show support for both body size and region of occurrence in the world (temperate versus tropical) as having an influence on vii diversification. For the diversification analyses in Chapter 2 and 3, I find evidence of underlying biological trait and/process influencing the diversification of these groups. viii TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................
Recommended publications
  • Ecological Correlates of Ghost Lineages in Ruminants

    Ecological Correlates of Ghost Lineages in Ruminants

    Paleobiology, 38(1), 2012, pp. 101–111 Ecological correlates of ghost lineages in ruminants Juan L. Cantalapiedra, Manuel Herna´ndez Ferna´ndez, Gema M. Alcalde, Beatriz Azanza, Daniel DeMiguel, and Jorge Morales Abstract.—Integration between phylogenetic systematics and paleontological data has proved to be an effective method for identifying periods that lack fossil evidence in the evolutionary history of clades. In this study we aim to analyze whether there is any correlation between various ecomorphological variables and the duration of these underrepresented portions of lineages, which we call ghost lineages for simplicity, in ruminants. Analyses within phylogenetic (Generalized Estimating Equations) and non-phylogenetic (ANOVAs and Pearson correlations) frameworks were performed on the whole phylogeny of this suborder of Cetartiodactyla (Mammalia). This is the first time ghost lineages are focused in this way. To test the robustness of our data, we compared the magnitude of ghost lineages among different continents and among phylogenies pruned at different ages (4, 8, 12, 16, and 20 Ma). Differences in mean ghost lineage were not significantly related to either geographic or temporal factors. Our results indicate that the proportion of the known fossil record in ruminants appears to be influenced by the preservation potential of the bone remains in different environments. Furthermore, large geographical ranges of species increase the likelihood of preservation. Juan L. Cantalapiedra, Gema Alcalde, and Jorge Morales. Departamento de Paleobiologı´a, Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, UCM-CSIC, Pinar 25, 28006 Madrid, Spain. E-mail: [email protected] Manuel Herna´ndez Ferna´ndez. Departamento de Paleontologı´a, Facultad de Ciencias Geolo´gicas, Universidad Complutense de Madrid y Departamento de Cambio Medioambiental, Instituto de Geociencias, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientı´ficas, Jose´ Antonio Novais 2, 28040 Madrid, Spain Daniel DeMiguel.
  • Lecture Notes: the Mathematics of Phylogenetics

    Lecture Notes: the Mathematics of Phylogenetics

    Lecture Notes: The Mathematics of Phylogenetics Elizabeth S. Allman, John A. Rhodes IAS/Park City Mathematics Institute June-July, 2005 University of Alaska Fairbanks Spring 2009, 2012, 2016 c 2005, Elizabeth S. Allman and John A. Rhodes ii Contents 1 Sequences and Molecular Evolution 3 1.1 DNA structure . .4 1.2 Mutations . .5 1.3 Aligned Orthologous Sequences . .7 2 Combinatorics of Trees I 9 2.1 Graphs and Trees . .9 2.2 Counting Binary Trees . 14 2.3 Metric Trees . 15 2.4 Ultrametric Trees and Molecular Clocks . 17 2.5 Rooting Trees with Outgroups . 18 2.6 Newick Notation . 19 2.7 Exercises . 20 3 Parsimony 25 3.1 The Parsimony Criterion . 25 3.2 The Fitch-Hartigan Algorithm . 28 3.3 Informative Characters . 33 3.4 Complexity . 35 3.5 Weighted Parsimony . 36 3.6 Recovering Minimal Extensions . 38 3.7 Further Issues . 39 3.8 Exercises . 40 4 Combinatorics of Trees II 45 4.1 Splits and Clades . 45 4.2 Refinements and Consensus Trees . 49 4.3 Quartets . 52 4.4 Supertrees . 53 4.5 Final Comments . 54 4.6 Exercises . 55 iii iv CONTENTS 5 Distance Methods 57 5.1 Dissimilarity Measures . 57 5.2 An Algorithmic Construction: UPGMA . 60 5.3 Unequal Branch Lengths . 62 5.4 The Four-point Condition . 66 5.5 The Neighbor Joining Algorithm . 70 5.6 Additional Comments . 72 5.7 Exercises . 73 6 Probabilistic Models of DNA Mutation 81 6.1 A first example . 81 6.2 Markov Models on Trees . 87 6.3 Jukes-Cantor and Kimura Models .
  • Phylogenetic Models Linking Speciation and Extinction to Chromosome and Mating System Evolution

    Phylogenetic Models Linking Speciation and Extinction to Chromosome and Mating System Evolution

    Phylogenetic Models Linking Speciation and Extinction to Chromosome and Mating System Evolution by William Allen Freyman A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Integrative Biology and the Designated Emphasis in Computational and Genomic Biology in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Dr. Bruce G. Baldwin, Chair Dr. John P. Huelsenbeck Dr. Brent D. Mishler Dr. Kipling W. Will Fall 2017 Phylogenetic Models Linking Speciation and Extinction to Chromosome and Mating System Evolution Copyright 2017 by William Allen Freyman Abstract Phylogenetic Models Linking Speciation and Extinction to Chromosome and Mating System Evolution by William Allen Freyman Doctor of Philosophy in Integrative Biology and the Designated Emphasis in Computational and Genomic Biology University of California, Berkeley Dr. Bruce G. Baldwin, Chair Key evolutionary transitions have shaped the tree of life by driving the processes of spe- ciation and extinction. This dissertation aims to advance statistical and computational ap- proaches that model the timing and nature of these transitions over evolutionary trees. These methodological developments in phylogenetic comparative biology enable formal, model- based, statistical examinations of the macroevolutionary consequences of trait evolution. Chapter 1 presents computational tools for data mining the large-scale molecular sequence datasets needed for comparative phylogenetic analyses. I describe a novel metric, the miss- ing sequence decisiveness score (MSDS), which assesses the phylogenetic decisiveness of a matrix given the pattern of missing sequence data. In Chapter 2, I introduce a class of phylogenetic models of chromosome number evolution that accommodate both anagenetic and cladogenetic change.
  • Species Concepts Should Not Conflict with Evolutionary History, but Often Do

    Species Concepts Should Not Conflict with Evolutionary History, but Often Do

    ARTICLE IN PRESS Stud. Hist. Phil. Biol. & Biomed. Sci. xxx (2008) xxx–xxx Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Stud. Hist. Phil. Biol. & Biomed. Sci. journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/shpsc Species concepts should not conflict with evolutionary history, but often do Joel D. Velasco Department of Philosophy, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 5185 White Hall, 600 North Park St., Madison, WI 53719, USA Department of Philosophy, Building 90, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA article info abstract Keywords: Many phylogenetic systematists have criticized the Biological Species Concept (BSC) because it distorts Biological Species Concept evolutionary history. While defences against this particular criticism have been attempted, I argue that Phylogenetic Species Concept these responses are unsuccessful. In addition, I argue that the source of this problem leads to previously Phylogenetic Trees unappreciated, and deeper, fatal objections. These objections to the BSC also straightforwardly apply to Taxonomy other species concepts that are not defined by genealogical history. What is missing from many previous discussions is the fact that the Tree of Life, which represents phylogenetic history, is independent of our choice of species concept. Some species concepts are consistent with species having unique positions on the Tree while others, including the BSC, are not. Since representing history is of primary importance in evolutionary biology, these problems lead to the conclusion that the BSC, along with many other species concepts, are unacceptable. If species are to be taxa used in phylogenetic inferences, we need a history- based species concept. Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. When citing this paper, please use the full journal title Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 1.
  • Phylogeny of a Rapidly Evolving Clade: the Cichlid Fishes of Lake Malawi

    Phylogeny of a Rapidly Evolving Clade: the Cichlid Fishes of Lake Malawi

    Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA Vol. 96, pp. 5107–5110, April 1999 Evolution Phylogeny of a rapidly evolving clade: The cichlid fishes of Lake Malawi, East Africa (adaptive radiationysexual selectionyspeciationyamplified fragment length polymorphismylineage sorting) R. C. ALBERTSON,J.A.MARKERT,P.D.DANLEY, AND T. D. KOCHER† Department of Zoology and Program in Genetics, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH 03824 Communicated by John C. Avise, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, March 12, 1999 (received for review December 17, 1998) ABSTRACT Lake Malawi contains a flock of >500 spe- sponsible for speciation, then we expect that sister taxa will cies of cichlid fish that have evolved from a common ancestor frequently differ in color pattern but not morphology. within the last million years. The rapid diversification of this Most attempts to determine the relationships among cichlid group has been attributed to morphological adaptation and to species have used morphological characters, which may be sexual selection, but the relative timing and importance of prone to convergence (8). Molecular sequences normally these mechanisms is not known. A phylogeny of the group provide the independent estimate of phylogeny needed to infer would help identify the role each mechanism has played in the evolutionary mechanisms. The Lake Malawi cichlids, however, evolution of the flock. Previous attempts to reconstruct the are speciating faster than alleles can become fixed within a relationships among these taxa using molecular methods have species (9, 10). The coalescence of mtDNA haplotypes found been frustrated by the persistence of ancestral polymorphisms within populations predates the origin of many species (11). In within species.
  • In Defence of the Three-Domains of Life Paradigm P.T.S

    In Defence of the Three-Domains of Life Paradigm P.T.S

    van der Gulik et al. BMC Evolutionary Biology (2017) 17:218 DOI 10.1186/s12862-017-1059-z REVIEW Open Access In defence of the three-domains of life paradigm P.T.S. van der Gulik1*, W.D. Hoff2 and D. Speijer3* Abstract Background: Recently, important discoveries regarding the archaeon that functioned as the “host” in the merger with a bacterium that led to the eukaryotes, its “complex” nature, and its phylogenetic relationship to eukaryotes, have been reported. Based on these new insights proposals have been put forward to get rid of the three-domain Model of life, and replace it with a two-domain model. Results: We present arguments (both regarding timing, complexity, and chemical nature of specific evolutionary processes, as well as regarding genetic structure) to resist such proposals. The three-domain Model represents an accurate description of the differences at the most fundamental level of living organisms, as the eukaryotic lineage that arose from this unique merging event is distinct from both Archaea and Bacteria in a myriad of crucial ways. Conclusions: We maintain that “a natural system of organisms”, as proposed when the three-domain Model of life was introduced, should not be revised when considering the recent discoveries, however exciting they may be. Keywords: Eucarya, LECA, Phylogenetics, Eukaryogenesis, Three-domain model Background (English: domain) as a higher taxonomic level than The discovery that methanogenic microbes differ funda- regnum: introducing the three domains of cellular life, Ar- mentally from Bacteria such as Escherichia coli or Bacillus chaea, Bacteria and Eucarya. This paradigm was proposed subtilis constitutes one of the most important biological by Woese, Kandler and Wheelis in PNAS in 1990 [2].
  • Integrative and Comparative Biology Integrative and Comparative Biology, Volume 58, Number 4, Pp

    Integrative and Comparative Biology Integrative and Comparative Biology, Volume 58, Number 4, Pp

    Integrative and Comparative Biology Integrative and Comparative Biology, volume 58, number 4, pp. 605–622 doi:10.1093/icb/icy088 Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology SYMPOSIUM INTRODUCTION The Temporal and Environmental Context of Early Animal Evolution: Considering All the Ingredients of an “Explosion” Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/icb/article-abstract/58/4/605/5056706 by Stanford Medical Center user on 15 October 2018 Erik A. Sperling1 and Richard G. Stockey Department of Geological Sciences, Stanford University, 450 Serra Mall, Building 320, Stanford, CA 94305, USA From the symposium “From Small and Squishy to Big and Armored: Genomic, Ecological and Paleontological Insights into the Early Evolution of Animals” presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology, January 3–7, 2018 at San Francisco, California. 1E-mail: [email protected] Synopsis Animals originated and evolved during a unique time in Earth history—the Neoproterozoic Era. This paper aims to discuss (1) when landmark events in early animal evolution occurred, and (2) the environmental context of these evolutionary milestones, and how such factors may have affected ecosystems and body plans. With respect to timing, molecular clock studies—utilizing a diversity of methodologies—agree that animal multicellularity had arisen by 800 million years ago (Ma) (Tonian period), the bilaterian body plan by 650 Ma (Cryogenian), and divergences between sister phyla occurred 560–540 Ma (late Ediacaran). Most purported Tonian and Cryogenian animal body fossils are unlikely to be correctly identified, but independent support for the presence of pre-Ediacaran animals is recorded by organic geochemical biomarkers produced by demosponges.
  • Genetic Change and Rates of Cladogenesis

    Genetic Change and Rates of Cladogenesis

    GENETIC CHANGE AND RATES OF CLADOGENESIS JOHN C. AVISE* AND FRANCISCO J. AYALA Depariment of Genetics, University of Californiu, Davis, California 95616 Manuscript received May 12, 1975 Revised copy received July 28, 1975 ABSTRACT Models are introduced which predict ratios of mean levels of genetic divergence in species-rich versus species-poor phylads under two competing assumptions: (1) genetic differentiation is a function of time, unrelated to the number of cladogenetic events and (2) genetic differentiation is proportional to the number of speciation events in the group. The models are simple, general, and biologically real, but not precise. They lead to qualitatively distinct predic- tions about levels of genetic divergence depending upon the relationship between rates of speciation and amount of genetic change. When genetic dis- tance between species is a function of time, mean genetic distances in speciose and depauperate phylads of equal evolutionary age are very similar. On the contrary, when genetic distance is a function of the number of speciations in the history of a phylad, the ratio of mean genetic distances separating species in speciose versus depauperate phylads is greater than one, and increases rapidly as the frequency of speciations in one group relative to the other increases. The models may be tested with data from natural populations to assess (1) possible correlations between rates of anagenesis and cladogenesis and (2) the amount of genetic differentiation accompanying the speciation process. The data collected in electrophoretic surveys and other kinds of studies can be used to test the predictions of the models. For this purpose genetic distances need to be measured in speciose and depauperate phylads of equal evolutionary age.
  • Phylogenetic Comparative Methods: a User's Guide for Paleontologists

    Phylogenetic Comparative Methods: a User's Guide for Paleontologists

    Phylogenetic Comparative Methods: A User’s Guide for Paleontologists Laura C. Soul - Department of Paleobiology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, USA David F. Wright - Division of Paleontology, American Museum of Natural History, Central Park West at 79th Street, New York, New York 10024, USA and Department of Paleobiology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, USA Abstract. Recent advances in statistical approaches called Phylogenetic Comparative Methods (PCMs) have provided paleontologists with a powerful set of analytical tools for investigating evolutionary tempo and mode in fossil lineages. However, attempts to integrate PCMs with fossil data often present workers with practical challenges or unfamiliar literature. In this paper, we present guides to the theory behind, and application of, PCMs with fossil taxa. Based on an empirical dataset of Paleozoic crinoids, we present example analyses to illustrate common applications of PCMs to fossil data, including investigating patterns of correlated trait evolution, and macroevolutionary models of morphological change. We emphasize the importance of accounting for sources of uncertainty, and discuss how to evaluate model fit and adequacy. Finally, we discuss several promising methods for modelling heterogenous evolutionary dynamics with fossil phylogenies. Integrating phylogeny-based approaches with the fossil record provides a rigorous, quantitative perspective to understanding key patterns in the history of life. 1. Introduction A fundamental prediction of biological evolution is that a species will most commonly share many characteristics with lineages from which it has recently diverged, and fewer characteristics with lineages from which it diverged further in the past. This principle, which results from descent with modification, is one of the most basic in biology (Darwin 1859).
  • Cognition, Biology and Evolution of Musicality Rstb.Royalsocietypublishing.Org Henkjan Honing1, Carel Ten Cate2, Isabelle Peretz3 and Sandra E

    Cognition, Biology and Evolution of Musicality Rstb.Royalsocietypublishing.Org Henkjan Honing1, Carel Ten Cate2, Isabelle Peretz3 and Sandra E

    Downloaded from http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on February 2, 2015 Without it no music: cognition, biology and evolution of musicality rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org Henkjan Honing1, Carel ten Cate2, Isabelle Peretz3 and Sandra E. Trehub4 1Amsterdam Brain and Cognition (ABC), Institute for Logic, Language and Computation (ILLC), University of Amsterdam, PO Box 94242, 1090 CE Amsterdam, The Netherlands 2Institute of Biology Leiden (IBL), Leiden Institute for Brain and Cognition (LIBC), Leiden University, Introduction PO Box 9505, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands 3Center for Research on Brain, Language and Music and BRAMS, Department of Psychology, University of Cite this article: Honing H, ten Cate C, Peretz Montreal, 1420 Mount Royal Boulevard, Montreal, Canada H3C 3J7 4 I, Trehub SE. 2015 Without it no music: Department of Psychology, University of Toronto Mississauga, 3359 Mississauga Road, Mississauga, Canada L5L 1C6 cognition, biology and evolution of musicality. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 370: 20140088. Musicality can be defined as a natural, spontaneously developing trait based http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2014.0088 on and constrained by biology and cognition. Music, by contrast, can be defined as a social and cultural construct based on that very musicality. One contribution of 12 to a theme issue One critical challenge is to delineate the constituent elements of musicality. What biological and cognitive mechanisms are essential for perceiving, appre- ‘Biology, cognition and origins of musicality’. ciating and making music? Progress in understanding the evolution of music cognition depends upon adequate characterization of the constituent mechan- Subject Areas: isms of musicality and the extent to which they are present in non-human behaviour, evolution, cognition, neuroscience, species.
  • Lineages, Splits and Divergence Challenge Whether the Terms Anagenesis and Cladogenesis Are Necessary

    Lineages, Splits and Divergence Challenge Whether the Terms Anagenesis and Cladogenesis Are Necessary

    Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2015, , – . With 2 figures. Lineages, splits and divergence challenge whether the terms anagenesis and cladogenesis are necessary FELIX VAUX*, STEVEN A. TREWICK and MARY MORGAN-RICHARDS Ecology Group, Institute of Agriculture and Environment, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand Received 3 June 2015; revised 22 July 2015; accepted for publication 22 July 2015 Using the framework of evolutionary lineages to separate the process of evolution and classification of species, we observe that ‘anagenesis’ and ‘cladogenesis’ are unnecessary terms. The terms have changed significantly in meaning over time, and current usage is inconsistent and vague across many different disciplines. The most popular definition of cladogenesis is the splitting of evolutionary lineages (cessation of gene flow), whereas anagenesis is evolutionary change between splits. Cladogenesis (and lineage-splitting) is also regularly made synonymous with speciation. This definition is misleading as lineage-splitting is prolific during evolution and because palaeontological studies provide no direct estimate of gene flow. The terms also fail to incorporate speciation without being arbitrary or relative, and the focus upon lineage-splitting ignores the importance of divergence, hybridization, extinction and informative value (i.e. what is helpful to describe as a taxon) for species classification. We conclude and demonstrate that evolution and species diversity can be considered with greater clarity using simpler, more transparent terms than anagenesis and cladogenesis. Describing evolution and taxonomic classification can be straightforward, and there is no need to ‘make words mean so many different things’. © 2015 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2015, 00, 000–000.
  • Comparative Phylogeography As an Integrative Approach to Historical Biogeography

    Comparative Phylogeography As an Integrative Approach to Historical Biogeography

    Journal of Biogeography, 28, 819±825 Comparative phylogeography as an integrative approach to historical biogeography ABSTRACT GUEST EDITORIAL Phylogeography has become a powerful approach for elucidating contemporary geographical patterns of evolutionary subdivision within species and species complexes. A recent extension of this approach is the comparison of phylogeographic patterns of multiple co-distributed taxonomic groups, or `comparative phylogeography.' Recent comparative phylogeographic studies have revealed pervasive and previously unrecognized biogeographic patterns which suggest that vicariance has played a more important role in the historical development of modern biotic assemblages than current taxonomy would indicate. Despite the utility of comparative phylogeography for uncovering such `cryptic vicariance', this approach has yet to be embraced by some researchers as a valuable complement to other approaches to historical biogeography. We address here some of the common misconceptions surrounding comparative phylogeography, provide an example of this approach based on the boreal mammal fauna of North America, and argue that together with other approaches, comparative phylogeography can contribute importantly to our understanding of the relationship between earth history and biotic diversi®cation. Keywords Area cladistics, comparative phylogeography, historical biogeography, vicariance. INTRODUCTION In a recent guest editorial Humphries (2000) presented an overview of historical biogeography. He concentrated largely on comparisons