Skip to main content
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences logoLink to Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
. 2002 Jan 22;269(1487):143–149. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2001.1873

Testing the accuracy of methods for reconstructing ancestral states of continuous characters.

Andrea J Webster 1, Andy Purvis 1
PMCID: PMC1690869  PMID: 11798429

Abstract

Many methods are available for estimating ancestral values of continuous characteristics, but little is known about how well these methods perform. Here we compare six methods: linear parsimony, squared-change parsimony, one-parameter maximum likelihood (Brownian motion), two-parameter maximum likelihood (Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process), and independent comparisons with and without branch-length information. We apply these methods to data from 20 morphospecies of Pleistocene planktic Foraminifera in order to estimate ancestral size and shape variables, and compare these estimates with measurements on fossils close to the phylogenetic position of 13 ancestors. No method produced accurate estimates for any variable: estimates were consistently less good as predictors of the observed values than were the averages of the observed values. The two-parameter maximum-likelihood model consistently produces the most accurate size estimates overall. Estimation of ancestral sizes is confounded by an evolutionary trend towards increasing size. Shape showed no trend but was still estimated very poorly: we consider possible reasons. We discuss the implications of our results for the use of estimates of ancestral characteristics.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (123.0 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Alroy J. Cope's rule and the dynamics of body mass evolution in North American fossil mammals. Science. 1998 May 1;280(5364):731–734. doi: 10.1126/science.280.5364.731. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Darling K. F., Wade C. M., Stewart I. A., Kroon D., Dingle R., Brown A. J. Molecular evidence for genetic mixing of Arctic and Antarctic subpolar populations of planktonic foraminifers. Nature. 2000 May 4;405(6782):43–47. doi: 10.1038/35011002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Oakley T. H., Cunningham C. W. Independent contrasts succeed where ancestor reconstruction fails in a known bacteriophage phylogeny. Evolution. 2000 Apr;54(2):397–405. doi: 10.1111/j.0014-3820.2000.tb00042.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Pagel M. Inferring the historical patterns of biological evolution. Nature. 1999 Oct 28;401(6756):877–884. doi: 10.1038/44766. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Purvis A., Rambaut A. Comparative analysis by independent contrasts (CAIC): an Apple Macintosh application for analysing comparative data. Comput Appl Biosci. 1995 Jun;11(3):247–251. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/11.3.247. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Saunders WB, Work DM, Nikolaeva SV. Evolution of Complexity in Paleozoic Ammonoid Sutures. Science. 1999 Oct 22;286(5440):760–763. doi: 10.1126/science.286.5440.760. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. de Vargas C., Norris R., Zaninetti L., Gibb S. W., Pawlowski J. Molecular evidence of cryptic speciation in planktonic foraminifers and their relation to oceanic provinces. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999 Mar 16;96(6):2864–2868. doi: 10.1073/pnas.96.6.2864. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences are provided here courtesy of The Royal Society

RESOURCES