Rooting morphologically divergent taxa - slow-evolving sequence data might help

Abstract

When fossils are sparse and the lineages studied are very divergent morphologically, analyses based exclusively on morphology may lead to conflicting and unexpected hypotheses. Through integration of data from conservative genes/gene regions the terminals including these data can anchor or constrain the search, thereby practically circumscribing the search space of the combined analyses. In this study, we revisit the phylogeny of a highly divergent group of mosses, class Polytrichopsida. We supplemented the morphological matrix by adding sequence data of the nuclear gene 18S, chloroplast genes rbcL and rps4, plus the mitochondrial gene nad5. For the phylogenetic analyses we used parsimony as the optimality criterion. Analyses that included all the terminals resulted in one most parsimonious tree with a clade comprised of Alophosia azorica and the fossil Meantoinea alophosioides representing the basal-most lineage. Analyses with different outgroup sampling produced the same topology for most ingroup relationships. An analysis excluding morphological characters and the four terminals for which only morphological characters were scored (the two fossil and two extant terminals) resulted in one optimal tree with identical topology to the one obtained when including all terminals. These results are largely congruent with those obtained in the recent analyses based exclusively on sequence level data of a larger number of terminals. Our results indicate that large size and complexity of the gametophyte have evolved independently in several lineages. Notably, the nodes of the backbone of the most parsimonious tree have very low support values, thus these inferred relationships could change if new additional information conflicts with the current data. Future studies should be aimed at incorporating all terminals into phylogenetic analyses, which is not an unrealistic goal for a group with less than 200 species. Also, additional fossils, some of which await detailed examination and description, need to be included. Whether these will affect the overall pattern of phylogeny presented here remains to be seen. In a group that is obviously very ancient, we cannot assume, a priori, that currently known fossil taxa, which go back in time less than 140 Ma, represent the oldest lineages of the group.