EXPLANATION

A laid-back trip through the Hennigian Forests

BACKGROUND

This paper is a comment on the idea of matrix-free Cladistics. Demonstration of this idea's efficiency is a major goal of the study. Within the proposed framework, the ordinary (phenetic) matrix is necessary only as "source" of Hennigian trees, not as a primary subject of the analysis. Switching from the matrix-based thinking to the matrix-free Cladistic approach clearly reveals that optimizations of the character-state changes are related not to the real processes, but to the form of the data representation.

METHODS

We focused our study on the binary data. We wrote the simple ruby-based script FORESTER version 1.0 that helps represent a binary matrix as an array of the rooted trees (as a "Hennigian forest"). The binary representations of the genomic (DNA) data have been made by script 1001. The Average Consensus method as well as the standard Maximum Parsimony (MP) approach has been used to analyze the data.

PRINCIPLE FINDINGS

The binary matrix may be easily re-written as a set of rooted trees (maximal relationships). The latter might be analyzed by the Average Consensus method. Paradoxically, this method, if applied to the Hennigian forests, in principle can help to identify clades despite the absence of the direct evidence from the primary data. Our approach may handle the clock- or non clock-like matrices, as well as the hypothetical, molecular or morphological data.

DISCUSSION

Our proposal clearly differs from the numerous phenetic alignment-free techniques of the construction of the phylogenetic trees. Dealing with the relations, not with the actual "data" also distinguishes our approach from all optimization-based methods, if the optimization is defined as a way to reconstruct the sequences of the character-state changes on a tree, either the standard alignment-based techniques or the "direct" alignment-free procedure. We are not viewing our recent framework as an alternative to the three-taxon statement analysis (3TA), but there are two major differences between our recent proposal and the 3TA, as originally designed and implemented: (1) the 3TA deals with the three-taxon statements or minimal relationships. According to the logic of 3TA, the set of the minimal trees must be established as a binary matrix and used as an input for the parsimony program. In this paper, we operate directly with maximal relationships written just as trees, not as binary matrices, while also using the Average Consensus method instead of the MP analysis. The solely 'reversal'-based groups can always be found by our method without the separate scoring of the putative reversals before analyses.

Rational disagreements in phylogenetics

This paper addresses the general problem of how to rationally choose an algorithm for phylogenetic inference. Specifically, the controversy between maximum likelihood (ML) and maximum parsimony (MP) perspectives is reframed within the philosophical issue of theory choice. A Kuhnian approach in which rationality is bounded and value-laden is offered and construed through the notion of a Style of Modeling. A Style is divided into four stages: collecting remnant models, constructing models of taxonomical identity, implementing modeling algorithms, and finally inferring and confirming evolutionary trees or cladograms. The identification and investigation of styles is useful for exploring sociological and epistemological issues such as individuating scientific communities and assessing the rationality of algorithm choice. Regarding the last point, this paper suggests that the values motivating ML and MP perspectives are justified but only contextually; these algorithms also have normative force because they can be therapeutic by allowing us to rationally choose among several competing trees, nonetheless this force is limited and cannot be used in order to decide the controversy tout court.

On the Three-Taxon Approach to Parsimony Analysis

The following three basic defects for which three-taxon analysis has been rejected as a method for biological systematics are reviewed: (1) character evolution is a priori assumed to be irreversible; (2) basic statements that are not logically independent are treated as if they are; (3) three-taxon statements that are considered as independent support for a given tree may be mutually exclusive on that tree. It is argued that these criticisms only relate to the particular way the three-taxon approach was originally implemented. Four-taxon analysis, an alternative implementation that circumvents these problems, is derived. Four-taxon analysis is identical to standard parsimony analysis except for an unnatural restriction on the maximum amount of homoplasy that may be concentrated in a single character state. This restriction follows directly from the basic tenet of the three-taxon approach, that character state distributions should be decomposed into basic statements that are, in themselves, still informative with respect to relationships. A reconsideration of what constitutes an elementary relevant statement in systematics leads to a reformulation of standard parsimony as two-taxon analysis and to a rejection of four-taxon analysis as a method for biological systematics.