Skip to main content
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences logoLink to Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
. 2003 Dec 7;270(1532):2507–2516. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2003.2524

A supertree of early tetrapods.

Marcello Ruta 1, Jonathan E Jeffery 1, Michael I Coates 1
PMCID: PMC1691537  PMID: 14667343

Abstract

A genus-level supertree for early tetrapods is built using a matrix representation of 50 source trees. The analysis of all combined trees delivers a long-stemmed topology in which most taxonomic groups are assigned to the tetrapod stem. A second analysis, which excludes source trees superseded by more comprehensive studies, supports a deep phylogenetic split between lissamphibian and amniote total groups. Instances of spurious groups are rare in both analyses. The results of the pruned second analysis are mostly comparable with those of a recent, character-based and large-scale phylogeny of Palaeozoic tetrapods. Outstanding areas of disagreement include the branching sequence of lepospondyls and the content of the amniote crown group, in particular the placement of diadectomorphs as stem diapsids. Supertrees are unsurpassed in their ability to summarize relationship patterns from multiple independent topologies. Therefore, they might be used as a simple test of the degree of corroboration of nodes in the contributory analyses. However, we urge caution in using them as a replacement for character-based cladograms and for inferring macroevolutionary patterns.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (153.9 KB).

Selected References

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

  1. Anderson J. S. The phylogenetic trunk: maximal inclusion of taxa with missing data in an analysis of the lepospondyli (Vertebrata, Tetrapoda). Syst Biol. 2001 Apr;50(2):170–193. doi: 10.1080/10635150119889. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Anderson Jason S. Use of well-known names in phylogenetic nomenclature: a reply to Laurin. Syst Biol. 2002 Oct;51(5):822–827. doi: 10.1080/10635150290102447. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bininda-Emonds O. R., Bryant H. N. Properties of matrix representation with parsimony analyses. Syst Biol. 1998 Sep;47(3):497–508. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bininda-Emonds O. R., Gittleman J. L., Purvis A. Building large trees by combining phylogenetic information: a complete phylogeny of the extant Carnivora (Mammalia). Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 1999 May;74(2):143–175. doi: 10.1017/s0006323199005307. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Clack J. A. An early tetrapod from 'Romer's Gap'. Nature. 2002 Jul 4;418(6893):72–76. doi: 10.1038/nature00824. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Coates MI, Ruta M, Milner AR. Early tetrapod evolution. Trends Ecol Evol. 2000 Aug;15(8):327–328. doi: 10.1016/s0169-5347(00)01927-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Gatesy John, Matthee Conrad, DeSalle Rob, Hayashi Cheryl. Resolution of a supertree/supermatrix paradox. Syst Biol. 2002 Aug;51(4):652–664. doi: 10.1080/10635150290102311. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Jeffery Jonathan E., Bininda-Emonds Olaf R. P., Coates Michael I., Richardson Michael K. Analyzing evolutionary patterns in amniote embryonic development. Evol Dev. 2002 Jul-Aug;4(4):292–302. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-142x.2002.02018.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Jeffery Jonathan E., Richardson Michael K., Coates Michael I., Bininda-Emonds Olaf R. P. Analyzing developmental sequences within a phylogenetic framework. Syst Biol. 2002 Jun;51(3):478–491. doi: 10.1080/10635150290069904. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Laurin Michel. Tetrapod phylogeny, amphibian origins, and the definition of the name tetrapoda. Syst Biol. 2002 Apr;51(2):364–369. doi: 10.1080/10635150252899815. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Pisani Davide, Wilkinson Mark. Matrix representation with parsimony, taxonomic congruence, and total evidence. Syst Biol. 2002 Feb;51(1):151–155. doi: 10.1080/106351502753475925. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Pisani Davide, Yates Adam M., Langer Max C., Benton Michael J. A genus-level supertree of the Dinosauria. Proc Biol Sci. 2002 May 7;269(1494):915–921. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2001.1942. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Quicke D. L., Taylor J., Purvis A. Changing the landscape: a new strategy for estimating large phylogenies. Syst Biol. 2001 Feb;50(1):60–66. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Ragan M. A. Phylogenetic inference based on matrix representation of trees. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 1992 Mar;1(1):53–58. doi: 10.1016/1055-7903(92)90035-f. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Ruta Marcello, Coates Michael I., Quicke Donald L. J. Early tetrapod relationships revisited. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2003 May;78(2):251–345. doi: 10.1017/s1464793102006103. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary data file
14667343s01.pdf (423.5KB, pdf)

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

RESOURCES