Morphological and phylogeographic evidence for budding speciation: an example in hominins

How Important Is Budding Speciation for Comparative Studies?

The acknowledgment of evolutionary dependence among species has fundamentally changed how we ask biological questions. Phylogenetic models became the standard approach for studies with 3 or more lineages, in particular those using extant species. Most phylogenetic comparative methods (PCMs) translate relatedness into covariance, meaning that evolutionary changes before lineages split should be interpreted together whereas after the split lineages are expected to change independently. This clever realization has shaped decades of research. Here, we discuss one element of the comparative method often ignored or assumed as unimportant: if nodes of a phylogeny represent the dissolution of the ancestral lineage into two new ones or if the ancestral lineage can survive speciation events (i.e., budding). Budding speciation is often reported in paleontological studies, due to the nature of the evidence for budding in the fossil record, but it is surprisingly absent in comparative methods. Here, we show that many PCMs assume that divergence happens as a symmetric split, even if these methods do not explicitly mention this assumption. We discuss the properties of trait evolution models for continuous and discrete traits and their adequacy under a scenario of budding speciation. We discuss the effects of budding speciation under a series of plausible evolutionary scenarios and show when and how these can influence our estimates. We also propose that long-lived lineages that have survived through a series of budding speciation events and given birth to multiple new lineages can produce evolutionary patterns that challenge our intuition about the most parsimonious history of trait changes in a clade. We hope our discussion can help bridge comparative approaches in paleontology and neontology as well as foster awareness about the assumptions we make when we use phylogenetic trees.

A new approach to exploratory data analysis in hominin phylogenetic reconstruction

The phylogenetic relationships between fossil hominin taxa have been a contentious topic for decades. Recent discoveries of new taxa, rather than resolving the issue, have only further confused it. Compounding this problem are the limitations of some of the tools frequently used by paleoanthropologists to analyze these relationships. Most commonly, phylogenetic questions are investigated using analytical methods such as maximum parsimony and Bayesian analysis. While these are useful analytical tools, these tree-building methods can have limitations when investigating taxa that may have complex evolutionary histories. Exploratory data analysis can provide information about patterns in a dataset that are obscured by tree-based methods. These patterns include phylogenetic signal conflict, which is not depicted in tree-based methods. Signal conflict can have a number of sources, including methodological issues with character choice, taxonomic issues, homoplasy, and gene flow between taxa. In this study, an exploratory data analysis of fossil hominin morphological data is conducted using the tree-based analytical method neighbor-joining and the network-based analytical method neighbor-net with the goal of visualizing phylogenetic signal conflict within a hominin morphological data set. The data set is divided into cranial regions, and each cranial region is analyzed individually to investigate which regions of the skull contain the highest levels of signal conflict. Results of this analysis show that conflicting phylogenetic signals are present in the hominin fossil record during the relatively speciose period between 3 and 1 Ma, and they also indicate that levels of signal conflict vary by cranial region. Possible sources of these conflicting signals are then explored. Exploratory data analyses such as this can be a useful tool in generating phylogenetic hypotheses and in refining character choice. This study also highlights the value network-based approaches can bring to the hominin phylogenetic analysis toolkit.

Evolutionary history of hominin brain size and phylogenetic comparative methods

An absolutely and relatively large brain has traditionally been viewed as a distinctive characteristic of the Homo genus, with anatomically modern humans presented at the apex of a long line of progressive increases in encephalization. Many studies continue to focus attention on increasing brain size in the Homo genus, while excluding measures of absolute and relative brain size of more geologically recent, smaller brained, hominins such as Homo floresiensis, and Homo naledi and smaller brained Homo erectus specimens. This review discusses the benefits of using phylogenetic comparative methods to trace the diverse changes in hominin brain evolution and the drawbacks of not doing so.

Fossils Do Not Substantially Improve, and May Even Harm, Estimates of Diversification Rate Heterogeneity

The fossilized birth-death (FBD) model is a naturally appealing way of directly incorporating fossil information when estimating diversification rates. However, an important yet often overlooked property of the original FBD derivation is that it distinguishes between two types of sampled lineages. Here we first discuss and demonstrate the impact of severely undersampling, and even not including fossils that represent samples of lineages that also had sampled descendants. We then explore the benefits of including fossils, generally, by implementing and then testing two-types of FBD models, including one that converts a fossil set into stratigraphic ranges, in more complex likelihood-based models that assume multiple rate classes across the tree. Under various simulation scenarios, including a scenario that exists far outside the set of models we evaluated, including fossils rarely outperforms analyses that exclude them altogether. At best, the inclusion of fossils improves precision but does not influence bias. Similarly, we found that converting the fossil set to stratigraphic ranges, which is one way to remedy the effects of undercounting the number of k-type fossils, results in turnover rates and extinction fraction estimates that are generally underestimated. While fossils remain essential for understanding diversification through time, in the specific case of understanding diversification given an existing, largely modern tree, they are not especially beneficial.

Calibrating phylogenies assuming bifurcation or budding alters inferred macroevolutionary dynamics in a densely sampled phylogeny of bivalve families

Analyses of evolutionary dynamics depend on how phylogenetic data are time-scaled. Most analyses of extant taxa assume a purely bifurcating model, where nodes are calibrated using the daughter lineage with the older first occurrence in the fossil record. This contrasts with budding, where nodes are calibrated using the younger first occurrence. Here, we use the extensive fossil record of bivalve molluscs for a large-scale evaluation of how branching models affect macroevolutionary analyses. We time-calibrated 91% of nodes, ranging in age from 2.59 to 485 Ma, in a phylogeny of 97 extant bivalve families. Allowing budding-based calibrations minimizes conflict between the tree and observed fossil record, and reduces the summed duration of inferred 'ghost lineages' from 6.76 billion years (Gyr; bifurcating model) to 1.00 Gyr (budding). Adding 31 extinct paraphyletic families raises ghost lineage totals to 7.86 Gyr (bifurcating) and 1.92 Gyr (budding), but incorporates more information to date divergences between lineages. Macroevolutionary analyses under a bifurcating model conflict with other palaeontological evidence on the magnitude of the end-Palaeozoic extinction, and strongly reduce Cenozoic diversification. Consideration of different branching models is essential when node-calibrating phylogenies, and for a major clade with a robust fossil record, a budding model appears more appropriate.

Empirical and Methodological Challenges to the Model-Based Inference of Diversification Rates in Extinct Clades

Changes in speciation and extinction rates are key to the dynamics of clade diversification, but attempts to infer them from phylogenies of extant species face challenges. Methods capable of synthesizing information from extant and fossil species have yielded novel insights into diversification rate variation through time, but little is known about their behavior when analyzing entirely extinct clades. Here, we use empirical and simulated data to assess how two popular methods, PyRate and Fossil BAMM, perform in this setting. We inferred the first tip-dated trees for ornithischian dinosaurs, and combined them with fossil occurrence data to test whether the clade underwent an end-Cretaceous decline. We then simulated phylogenies and fossil records under empirical constraints to determine whether macroevolutionary and preservation rates can be teased apart under paleobiologically realistic conditions. We obtained discordant inferences about ornithischian macroevolution including a long-term speciation rate decline (BAMM), mostly flat rates with a steep diversification drop (PyRate) or without one (BAMM), and episodes of implausibly accelerated speciation and extinction (PyRate). Simulations revealed little to no conflation between speciation and preservation, but yielded spuriously correlated speciation and extinction estimates while time-smearing tree-wide shifts (BAMM) or overestimating their number (PyRate). Our results indicate that the small phylogenetic datasets available to vertebrate paleontologists and the assumptions made by current model-based methods combine to yield potentially unreliable inferences about the diversification of extinct clades. We provide guidelines for interpreting the results of the existing approaches in light of their limitations, and suggest how the latter may be mitigated.