Reproducibility of results in phylogenetic analysis of mollusks: a reanalysis of the Taylor, Kantor, and Sysoev (1993) data set for conoidean gastropods

Authors
Citation
G. Rosenberg, Reproducibility of results in phylogenetic analysis of mollusks: a reanalysis of the Taylor, Kantor, and Sysoev (1993) data set for conoidean gastropods, AM MALAC B, 14(2), 1998, pp. 219-228
Citations number
17
Categorie Soggetti
Animal Sciences
Journal title
AMERICAN MALACOLOGICAL BULLETIN
ISSN journal
07402783 → ACNP
Volume
14
Issue
2
Year of publication
1998
Pages
219 - 228
Database
ISI
SICI code
0740-2783(1998)14:2<219:RORIPA>2.0.ZU;2-E
Abstract
Reanalysis of the Taylor, Kantor, and Sysoev (1993) data set on conoidean g astropods failed to reproduce their results. Taylor er al. found more than 900 trees of length 189; reanalysis yielded 32,700 trees of length 187. The number of trees they found was limited by the memory available on the comp uter used for the analysis. The Taylor rt al. consensus tree omitted the st ated outgroup Benthobia (Pseudolividae); reanalysis including the outgroup yielded 3,149 trees of length 193, in all of which Benthobia fell within th e ingroup. Strict and majority-rule consensus trees differed considerably i n topology from those with Benthobia excluded. Reanalysis excluding the hyp othetical ancestor, whose character states Taylor et al. determined in part by ingroup analysis, yielded additional topologies of consensus trees. Onl y eight of 38 clades in the Taylor er al. tree appeared in all three strict consensus trees; 17 clades were not supported by any of the majority rule consensus trees. All three majority-rule consensus trees did support the tr ansfer to Conidae by Taylor er nl. of the turrid subfamilies Clathurellinae , Conorbinae, Oenopotinae, Mangeliinae, Daphnellinae, and Taraninae. This c lade, however, did not appear in two of the strict consensus trees, so supp ort for it is equivocal. Additional problems with the analysis include incorrect character mappings, use of characters primarily from one organ system, conflicts between text and data matrix, choice of taxa, and inclusion of data from taxa not includ ed in the cladistic analysis in formulating the classification. The Taylor er al. data set does nor support strong inferences about conoidean phylogen y, and there is not yet convincing evidence for abandoning the traditional classification of the group. Nonetheless, their data are an immensely valua ble contribution to be built on as information about conoidean taxa, charac ters, organ systems, and outgroups accumulates.