Access

You are not currently logged in.

Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:

login

Log in to your personal account or through your institution.

If you need an accessible version of this item please contact JSTOR User Support

Congruence Between Molecular and Morphological Phylogenies

Colin Patterson, David M. Williams and Christopher J. Humpries
Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics
Vol. 24 (1993), pp. 153-188
Published by: Annual Reviews
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2097176
Page Count: 36
  • Read Online (Free)
  • Download ($36.00)
  • Cite this Item
If you need an accessible version of this item please contact JSTOR User Support
Congruence Between Molecular and Morphological Phylogenies
Preview not available

Abstract

Phylogenies based on molecular sequence data and on morphology are surveyed and compared within animals (concentrating on vertebrates, mammals, and hominids in particular) and within plants (concentrating on Asterales, angiosperms, seed plants, and major groups of "green plants"). The theoretical problem of assessing congruence between trees generated from different data sets is still unsolved. However, in practice, we find that incongruence between molecular trees (generated from different data sets or by different analytical methods) is as striking or pervasive as is incongruence between trees generated by morphologists in the long history of their discipline. Morphologists achieved much during that time, and none of their well-supported phylogenies is overthrown by molecular data. So far, molecular sequences have contributed most significantly in areas where morphological data are inconclusive, deficient, nonexistent, or poorly analyzed. The interrelationships of extant hominines (Gorilla, Homo, Pan), where morphology is inconclusive, are exemplary. The pattern [Gorilla [Homo, Pan]] is significantly favored by nucleotide sequence data, but the effort necessary to achieve resolution in that simple case (ca. 30 kb of aligned sequences, sampling all four extant species) may foreshadow the workload that lies ahead.

Page Thumbnails

  • Thumbnail: Page 
153
    153
  • Thumbnail: Page 
154
    154
  • Thumbnail: Page 
155
    155
  • Thumbnail: Page 
156
    156
  • Thumbnail: Page 
157
    157
  • Thumbnail: Page 
158
    158
  • Thumbnail: Page 
159
    159
  • Thumbnail: Page 
160
    160
  • Thumbnail: Page 
161
    161
  • Thumbnail: Page 
162
    162
  • Thumbnail: Page 
163
    163
  • Thumbnail: Page 
164
    164
  • Thumbnail: Page 
165
    165
  • Thumbnail: Page 
166
    166
  • Thumbnail: Page 
167
    167
  • Thumbnail: Page 
168
    168
  • Thumbnail: Page 
169
    169
  • Thumbnail: Page 
170
    170
  • Thumbnail: Page 
171
    171
  • Thumbnail: Page 
172
    172
  • Thumbnail: Page 
173
    173
  • Thumbnail: Page 
174
    174
  • Thumbnail: Page 
175
    175
  • Thumbnail: Page 
176
    176
  • Thumbnail: Page 
177
    177
  • Thumbnail: Page 
178
    178
  • Thumbnail: Page 
179
    179
  • Thumbnail: Page 
180
    180
  • Thumbnail: Page 
181
    181
  • Thumbnail: Page 
182
    182
  • Thumbnail: Page 
183
    183
  • Thumbnail: Page 
184
    184
  • Thumbnail: Page 
185
    185
  • Thumbnail: Page 
186
    186
  • Thumbnail: Page 
187
    187
  • Thumbnail: Page 
188
    188