David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Acta Biotheoretica 55 (3):269-281 (2007)
When phylogenetic trees constructed from morphological and molecular evidence disagree (i.e. are incongruent) it has been suggested that the differences are spurious or that the molecular results should be preferred a priori. Comparing trees can increase confidence (congruence), or demonstrate that at least one tree is incorrect (incongruence). Statistical analyses of 181 molecular and 49 morphological trees shows that incongruence is greater between than within the morphological and molecular partitions, and this difference is significant for the molecular partition. Because the level of incongruence between a pair of trees gives a minimum bound on how much error is present in the two trees, our results indicate that the level of error may be underestimated by congruence within partitions. Thus comparisons between morphological and molecular trees are particularly useful for detecting this incongruence (spurious or otherwise). Molecular trees have higher average congruence than morphological trees, but the difference is not significant, and both within- and between-partition incongruence is much lower than expected by chance alone. Our results suggest that both molecular and morphological trees are, in general, useful approximations of a common underlying phylogeny and thus, when molecules and morphology clash, molecular phylogenies should not be considered more reliable a priori.
|Keywords||Philosophy Evolutionary Biology Philosophy of Biology|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
John Beatty (1982). The Insights and Oversights of Molecular Genetics: The Place of the Evolutionary Perspective. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1982:341 - 355.
Robert C. Bishop (2005). Patching Physics and Chemistry Together. Philosophy of Science 72 (5):710-722.
Robert Bishop (2005). Patching Physics and Chemistry Together. Philosophy of Science 72 (5):710-722.
Joel B. Hagen (1999). Naturalists, Molecular Biologists, and the Challenges of Molecular Evolution. Journal of the History of Biology 32 (2):321 - 341.
John R. Jungck (1982). Is the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis Robust Enough to Withstand the Challenge of Recent Discoveries in Molecular Biology and Molecular Evolution? PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1982:322 - 328.
Jean-Pierre Llored (2010). Mereology and Quantum Chemistry: The Approximation of Molecular Orbital. [REVIEW] Foundations of Chemistry 12 (3):203-221.
Tudor M. Baetu (2011). Mechanism Schemas and the Relationship Between Biological Theories. In Phyllis McKay Illari Federica Russo (ed.), Causality in the Sciences. Oxford University Press
Ingo Brigandt (2006). Homology and Heterochrony: The Evolutionary Embryologist Gavin Rylands de Beer (1899-1972). Journal of Experimental Zoology (Molecular and Developmental Evolution) 306:317–328.
C. Kenneth Waters (1994). Genes Made Molecular. Philosophy of Science 61 (2):163-185.
Richard Burian (2004). Molecular Epigenesis, Molecular Pleiotropy, and Molecular Gene Definitions. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 26 (1):59 - 80.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads8 ( #256,695 of 1,707,724 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #205,228 of 1,707,724 )
How can I increase my downloads?