Multiple modes of inference reveal less phylogenetic signal in marsupial basicranial shape compared with the rest of the cranium

• Published in: Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological sciences Vol. 378; no. 1880; p. 20220085
• Main Authors: Weisbecker, Vera, Beck, Robin M D, Guillerme, Thomas, Harrington, Arianna R, Lange-Hodgson, Leonie, Lee, Michael S Y, Mardon, Karine, Phillips, Matthew J
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England The Royal Society 03.07.2023
• Subjects: Animals; Biological Evolution; Marsupialia; Phylogeny; Skull; Skull Base - anatomy & histology; phylogenetics; parsimony; phylomorphospace; geometric morphometrics; marsupials
• ISSN: 0962-8436; 1471-2970; 1471-2970
• DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2022.0085

Incorporating morphological data into modern phylogenies allows integration of fossil evidence, facilitating divergence dating and macroevolutionary inferences. Improvements in the phylogenetic utility of morphological data have been sought via Procrustes-based geometric morphometrics (GMM), but with mixed success and little clarity over what anatomical areas are most suitable. Here, we assess GMM-based phylogenetic reconstructions in a heavily sampled source of discrete characters for mammalian phylogenetics-the basicranium-in 57 species of marsupial mammals, compared with the remainder of the cranium. We show less phylogenetic signal in the basicranium compared with a 'Rest of Cranium' partition, using diverse metrics of phylogenetic signal ( , phylogenetically aligned principal components analysis, comparisons of UPGMA/neighbour-joining/parsimony trees and cophenetic distances to a reference phylogeny) for scaled, Procrustes-aligned landmarks and allometry-corrected residuals. Surprisingly, a similar pattern emerged from parsimony-based analyses of discrete cranial characters. The consistent results across methods suggest that easily computed metrics such as can provide good guidance on phylogenetic information in a landmarking configuration. In addition, GMM data may be less informative for intricate but conservative anatomical regions such as the basicranium, while better-but not necessarily novel-phylogenetic information can be expected for broadly characterized shapes such as entire bones. This article is part of the theme issue 'The mammalian skull: development, structure and function'.