Search

A genus is a taxonomic unit that may contain one species (monotypic) or thousands. Yet counts of genera or families are used to quantify diversity where species-level data are not available. High frequencies of monotypic genera (~30% of animals) have previously been scrutinized as an artefact of human classification. To test whether Linnean taxonomy conflicts with phylogeny, we compared idealized phylogenetic systematics in silico with real-world data. We generated highly replicated, simulated phylogenies under a variety of fixed speciation/extinction rates, imposed three independent taxonomic sorting algorithms on these clades (2.65 × 108 simulated species) and compared the resulting genus size data with quality-controlled taxonomy of animal groups (2.8 × 105 species). 'Perfect' phylogenetic systematics arrives at similar distributions to real-world taxonomy, regardless of the taxonomic algorithm. Rapid radiations occasionally produce a large genus when speciation rates are favourable; however, small genera can arise in many different ways, from individual lineage persistence and/or extinctions creating subdivisions within a clade. The consistency of this skew distribution in simulation and real-world data, at sufficiently large samples, indicates that specific aspects of its mathematical behaviour could be developed into generalized or nomothetic principles of the global frequency distributions of higher taxa. Importantly, Linnean taxonomy is a better-than-expected reflection of underlying evolutionary patterns. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Classic null models for speciation and extinction give rise to phylogenies that differ in distribution from empirical phylogenies. In particular, empirical phylogenies are less balanced and have branching times closer to the root compared to phylogenies predicted by common null models. This difference might be due to null models of the speciation and extinction process being too simplistic, or due to the empirical datasets not being representative of random phylogenies. A third possibility arises because phylogenetic reconstruction methods often infer gene trees rather than species trees, producing an incongruity between models that predict species tree patterns and empirical analyses that consider gene trees. We investigate the extent to which the difference between gene trees and species trees under a combined birth-death and multispecies coalescent model can explain the difference in empirical trees and birth-death species trees. We simulate gene trees embedded in simulated species trees and investigate their difference with respect to tree balance and branching times. We observe that the gene trees are less balanced and typically have branching times closer to the root than the species trees. Empirical trees from Tree Base are also less balanced than our simulated species trees, and model gene trees can explain an imbalance increase of up to 8% compared to species trees. However, we see a much larger imbalance increase in empirical trees, about 100%, meaning that additional features must also be causing imbalance in empirical trees. This simulation study highlights the necessity of revisiting the assumptions made in phylogenetic analyses, as these assumptions, such as equating the gene tree with the species tree, might lead to a biased conclusion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Tens of thousands of phylogenetic trees, describing the evolutionary relationships between hundreds of thousands of taxa, are readily obtainable from various databases. From such trees, inferences can be made about the underlying macroevolutionary processes, yet remarkably these processes are still poorly understood. Simple and widely used evolutionary null models are problematic: Empirical trees show very different imbalance between the sizes of the daughter clades of ancestral taxa compared to what models predict. Obtaining a simple evolutionary model that is both biologically plausible and produces the imbalance seen in empirical trees is a challenging problem, to which none of the existing models provide a satisfying answer. Here we propose a simple, biologically plausible macroevolutionary model in which the rate of speciation decreases with species age, whereas extinction rates can vary quite generally. We show that this model provides a remarkable fit to the thousands of trees stored in the online database TreeBase. The biological motivation for the identified age-dependent speciation process may be that recently evolved taxa often colonize new regions or niches and may initially experience little competition. These new taxa are thus more likely to give rise to further new taxa than a taxon that has remained largely unchanged and is, therefore, well adapted to its niche. We show that age-dependent speciation may also be the result of different within-species populations following the same laws of lineage splitting to produce new species. As the fit of our model to the tree database shows, this simple biological motivation provides an explanation for a long standing problem in macroevolution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Time-calibrated molecular phylogenies provide a valuable window into the tempo and mode of species diversification, especially for the large number of groups that lack adequate fossil records. Molecular phylogenetic data frequently suggest an initial “explosive speciation” phase, leading to widespread speculation that ecological niche-filling processes might govern the dynamics of species diversification during evolutionary radiations. However, these patterns are difficult to reconcile with the fossil record. The fossil record strongly suggests that extinction rates have been high relative to speciation rates, but such elevated background extinction should erase the signal of early, rapid speciation from molecular phylogenies. For this reason, extinction rates in molecular phylogenies are frequently estimated as zero under the widely used birth–death model. Here, I construct a simple model that combines phylogenetically patterned extinction with pulsed turnover dynamics and constant diversity through time. Using approximate Bayesian methods, I show that heritable extinction can easily explain the phenomenon of explosive early diversification, even when net diversification rates are equal to zero. Several assumptions of the model are more consistent with both the fossil record and neontological data than the standard birth–death model and it may thus represent a viable alternative interpretation of phylogenetic diversification patterns. These results suggest that variation in the absolute rate of lineage turnover through time, in conjunction with phylogenetically nonrandom extinction, may underlie the apparent diversity-dependent speciation observed in molecular phylogenies. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Species traits may influence rates of speciation and extinction, affecting both the patterns of diversification among lineages and the distribution of traits among species. Existing likelihood approaches for detecting differential diversification require complete phylogenies; that is, every extant species must be present in a well-resolved phylogeny. We developed 2 likelihood methods that can be used to infer the effect of a trait on speciation and extinction without complete phylogenetic information, generalizing the recent binary-state speciation and extinction method. Our approaches can be used where a phylogeny can be reasonably assumed to be a random sample of extant species or where all extant species are included but some are assigned only to terminal unresolved clades. We explored the effects of decreasing phylogenetic resolution on the ability of our approach to detect differential diversification within a Bayesian framework using simulated phylogenies. Differential diversification caused by an asymmetry in speciation rates was nearly as well detected with only 50% of extant species phylogenetically resolved as with complete phylogenetic knowledge. We demonstrate our unresolved clade method with an analysis of sexual dimorphism and diversification in shorebirds (Charadriiformes). Our methods allow for the direct estimation of the effect of a trait on speciation and extinction rates using incompletely resolved phylogenies. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Determining whether speciation and extinction rates depend on the state of a particular character has been of long-standing interest to evolutionary biologists. To assess the effect of a character on diversification rates using likelihood methods requires that we be able to calculate the probability that a group of extant species would have evolved as observed, given a particular model of the character's effect. Here we describe how to calculate this probability for a phylogenetic tree and a two-state (binary) character under a simple model of evolution (the "BiSSE" model, binary-state speciation and extinction). The model involves six parameters, specifying two speciation rates (rate when the lineage is in state 0; rate when in state 1), two extinction rates (when in state 0; when in state 1), and two rates of character state change (from 0 to 1, and from 1 to 0). Using these probability calculations, we can do maximum likelihood inference to estimate the model's parameters and perform hypothesis tests (e.g., is the rate of speciation elevated for one character state over the other?). We demonstrate the application of the method using simulated data with known parameter values. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]