bioRxiv2020
Despite their ecological and evolutionary importance as key components of tropical ecosystems, the phylogeny of fig trees is still unresolved. We use restriction-site-associated DNA (RAD) sequencing (ca 420kb) and 102 morphological characters to elucidate the relationships between 70 species of Ficus representing all known subgenera and sections and five outgroups. We compare morphological and molecular results to highlight discrepancies and reveal possible inference bias. We analyse marker and taxon properties that may bias molecular inferences, with existing softwares and a new approach based on iterative principal component analysis to reduce variance between clusters of samples. For the first time, with both molecular and morphological data, we recover a monophyletic subgenus Urostigma and a clade with all gynodioecious fig trees. However, our analyses show that it is not possible to homogenize evolutionary rates and GC content for all taxa prior to phylogenetic inference and that four competing positions for the root of the molecular tree are possible. The placement of the long-branched section Pharmacosycea as sister to all other fig trees is not supported by morphological data and considered as a result of a long branch attraction artefact to the outgroups. Regarding morphological features and indirect evidence from the pollinator tree of life, the topology that divides the genus Ficus into monoecious versus gynodioecious species appears most likely. Active pollination is inferred as the ancestral state for all topologies, ambiguity remains for ancestral breeding system including for the favored topology, and it appears most likely that the ancestor of fig trees was a freestanding tree. Increasing sampling may improve results and would be at least as relevant as maximizing the number of sequenced regions given the strong heterogeneity in evolutionary rates, and to a lesser extent, base composition among species. Despite morphological plasticity and frequent homoplasy of multiple characters, we advocate giving a central role to morphology in our understanding of the evolution of Ficus, especially as it can help detect insidious systematic errors that tend to become more pronounced with larger molecular data sets.