Hostname: page-component-5b777bbd6c-xnzsz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-06-22T15:43:18.754Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Maximum likelihood estimation of phylogeny using stratigraphic data

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 February 2016

John P. Huelsenbeck  and
Bruce Rannala
John P. Huelsenbeck
Affiliation:
Department of Integrative Biology, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720-3140. E-mail: johnh@mws4.biol.berkeley.edu
Bruce Rannala
Affiliation:
Department of Integrative Biology, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720-3140. E-mail: johnh@mws4.biol.berkeley.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The stratigraphic distribution of fossil species contains potential information about phylogeny because some phylogenetic trees are more consistent with the distribution of fossils in the rock record than others. A maximum likelihood estimator of phylogeny is derived using an explicit mathematical model of fossil preservation. The method assumes that fossil preservations within lineages follow an independent Poisson process, but can be extended to include other preservation models. The performance of the method was examined using Monte Carlo simulation. The performance of the maximum likelihood estimator of topology increases with an increase in the preservation rate. The method is biased, like other methods of phylogeny estimation, when the rate of fossil preservation is low; estimated trees tend to be more asymmetrical than the true tree. The method appears to perform well as a tree rooting criterion even when preservation rates are low. We suggest several possible extensions of the method to address other questions about the nature of fossil preservation and the process of speciation and extinction over time and space.

Type
Articles
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 23 , Issue 2 , Spring 1997 , pp. 174 - 180
Copyright
Copyright © The Paleontological Society 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

Benton, M. J. 1995. Testing the time axis of phylogenies. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 349:5–10.Google Scholar
Benton, M. J., and Storrs, G. W. 1996. Diversity in the past: comparing cladistic phylogenies and stratigraphy. pp. 19–40In Aspects of the genesis and maintenance of biological diversity. Hochberg, M. E., Clobert, J., and Barbault, R., eds. Oxford University Press, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, D. R. 1961. Tests of separate families of hypotheses. Proceedings of the Fourth Berkeley Symposium. University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Cox, D. R. 1962. Further results on tests of separate families of hypotheses. Journal of the Royal Society of London B 24:406–424.Google Scholar
Cox, D. R., and Hinkley, D. V. 1974. Theoretical statistics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, A. W. F. 1992. Likelihood. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felsenstein, J. 1981. Evolutionary trees from DNA sequences: a maximum likelihood approach. Journal of Molecular Evolution 17:368–376.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Felsenstein, J. 1995. PHYLIP (Phylogeny Inference Package) Version 3.57c. Distributed by the author. Department of Genetics, University of Washington, Seattle.Google Scholar
Fisher, D. C. 1982. Phylogenetic and macroevolutionary patterns within the Xiphosurida. Proceedings of the Third North American Paleontological Convention 1:175–180.Google Scholar
Fisher, D. C. 1988. Stratocladistics: integrating stratigraphic and morphologic data in phylogenetic inference. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Program 20:A186.Google Scholar
Fisher, D. C. 1991. Phylogenetic analysis and its application in evolutionary paleobiology. In Gilinsky, N. L. and Signor, P. W., eds. Analytical paleobiology. Paleontological Society Short Courses in Paleontology No. 4:103–122. University of Tennessee, Knoxville.Google Scholar
Fisher, D. C. 1992. Stratigraphic parsimony. pp. 124–129in Maddison, W. P. and Maddison, D. R.MacClade: analysis of phylogeny and character evolution. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Mass.Google Scholar
Foote, M., and Raup, D. M. 1996. Fossil preservation and the stratigraphic ranges of taxa. Paleobiology 22:121–140.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Furnas, G. W. 1984. The generation of random, binary, unordered trees. Journal of Classification 1:187–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gauthier, J., Kluge, A., and Rowe, T. 1988. Amniote phylogeny and the importance of fossils. Cladistics 4:105–209.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gingerich, P. D. 1979. The stratophenetic approach to phylogeny reconstruction in vertebrate paleontology. pp. 41–77In Cracraft, J. and Eldredge, N., eds. Phylogenetic analysis and paleontology. Columbia University Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldman, N. 1993. Statistical tests of models of DNA substitution. Journal of Molecular Evolution 36:182–198.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harper, C. 1976. Phylogenetic inference in paleontology. Journal of Paleontology 50:180–193.Google Scholar
Huelsenbeck, J. P. 1994. Comparing the stratigraphic record to estimates of phylogeny. Paleobiology 20:470–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huelsenbeck, J. P., and Bull, J. J. 1996. A likelihood ratio test to detect conflicting phylogenetic signal. Systematic Biology 45:92–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huelsenbeck, J. P., and Kirkpatrick, M. 1996. Do phylogenetic methods produce trees with biased shapes? Evolution 50:1418–1424.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, N. L., Kotz, S., and Balakrishnam, N. 1994. Continuous univariate distributions, Vol. 2. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Kendall, D. G. 1949. Stochastic processes and population growth. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B 11:230–264.Google Scholar
Kirkpatrick, M., and Slatkin, M. 1993. Searching for evolutionary patterns in the shape of a phylogenetic tree. Evolution 47:1171–1181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, C. R. 1990. Confidence intervals on stratigraphic ranges. Paleobiology 16:1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, C. R. 1991. Estimation of taxonomic ranges from the fossil record. In Gilinsky, N. L. and Signor, P. W., eds. Analytical paleobiology. Paleontological Society Short Courses in Paleontology No. 4:19–38. University of Tennessee, KnoxvilleGoogle Scholar
Norell, M. 1992. Taxic origin and temporal diversity: the effect of phylogeny. pp. 89–118In Novacek, M. J. and Wheeler, Q. D., eds. Extinction and phylogeny. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Norell, M., and Novacek, M. 1992. The fossil record and evolution: comparing cladistic and paleontologic evidence for vertebrate history. Science 255:1690–1693.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raup, D. M. 1985. Mathematical models of cladogenesis. Paleobiology 11:42–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raup, D. M., and Stanley, S. M. 1971. Principles of paleontology. W. H. Freeman, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Solow, A. R. 1996. Tests and confidence intervals for a common upper endpoint in fossil taxa. Paleobiology 22:406–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strauss, D., and Sadler, P. M. 1989. Classical confidence intervals and Bayesian probability estimates for ends of local taxon ranges. Mathematical Geology 21:411–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, P. J. 1995. Stratigraphic tests of cladistic hypotheses. Paleobiology 21:153–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, Z. 1993. Maximum likelihood estimation of phylogeny from DNA sequences when substitution rates differ over sites. Molecular Biology and Evolution 10:1396–1401.Google ScholarPubMed