Back

From Fossils to Living Canids: Two Contrasting Perspectives on Biogeographic Diversification

Porto, L. M. V.; Maestri, R.; Janzen, T.; Etienne, R.

2023-09-01 evolutionary biology
10.1101/2023.08.30.555443 bioRxiv
Show abstract

The Canidae are an ecologically important group of dog-like carnivores that arose in North America and spread across the planet around 10 million years ago. The current distribution patterns of species, coupled with their phylogenetic structure, suggest that Canidae diversification may have occurred at varying rates across different biogeographic areas. However, such extant-only analyses undervalued the groups rich fossil history because of a limitation in methods development. Current State-dependent Speciation and Extinction (SSE) models are (i) often parameter-rich which hinders reliable application to relatively small clades such as the Caninae (the only extant subclade of the Canidae consisting of 36 extant species); and (ii) often assume as possible states only the states that extant species present. Here we extend the SSE method SecSSE to apply to phylogenies with extinct species as well (111 Caninae species) and compare the results to those of analyses with the extant-species-only phylogeny. The results on the extant-species tree suggest that distinct diversification patterns are related to geographic areas, but the results on the complete tree do not support this conclusion. Furthermore, our extant-species analysis yielded an unrealistically low estimate of the extinction rate. These contrasting findings suggest that information from extinct species is different from information from extant species. A possible explanation for our results is that extinct species may have characteristics (causing their extinction), which may be different from the characteristics of extant species that caused them to be extant. Hence, we conclude that differences in biogeographic areas probably did not contribute much to the variation in diversification rates in Caninae.

Matching journals

The top 1 journal accounts for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.