Mind the Outgroup: Influence of Taxon Sampling on Total-Evidence Dating of Pimpliform Parasitoid Wasps (Hymenoptera, Ichneumonidae)
Spasojevic, T.; Broad, G. R.; Saaksjarvi, I.; Schwarz, M.; Ito, M.; Korenko, S.; Klopfstein, S.
Show abstract
Taxon sampling is a central aspect of phylogenetic study design, but it has received limited attention in the context of molecular dating and especially in the framework of total-evidence dating, a widely used dating approach that directly integrates molecular and morphological information from extant and fossil taxa. We here assess the impact of different outgroup sampling schemes on age estimates in a total-evidence dating analysis under the uniform tree prior. Our study group are Pimpliformes, a highly diverse, rapidly radiating group of parasitoid wasps of the family Ichneumonidae. We cover 201 extant and 79 fossil taxa, including the oldest fossils of the family from the Early Cretaceous and the first unequivocal representatives of extant subfamilies from the mid Paleogene. Based on newly compiled molecular data from ten nuclear genes and a morphological matrix that includes 222 characters, we show that age estimates become both older and less precise with the inclusion of more distant and more poorly sampled outgroups. In addition, we discover an artefact that might be detrimental for total-evidence dating: "bare-branch attraction", namely high attachment probabilities of, especially, older fossils to terminal branches for which morphological data are missing. After restricting outgroup sampling and adding morphological data for the previously attracting, bare branches, we recover a Middle and Early Jurassic origin for Pimpliformes and Ichneumonidae, respectively. This first age estimate for the group not only suggests an older origin than previously thought, but also that diversification of the crown group happened before the Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary. Our case study demonstrates that in order to obtain robust age estimates, total-evidence dating studies need to be based on a thorough and balanced sampling of both extant and fossil taxa, with the aim of minimizing evolutionary rate heterogeneity and missing morphological information.
Matching journals
The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Hiding in Plain Sight: Phylogenomics Reveals a New Branch on the Noctuoidea Tree of Life 97%
- Historical biogeography of early diverging termite lineages (Isoptera: Teletisoptera) 97%
- The unresolved phylogenomic tree of butterflies and moths (Lepidoptera): assessing the potential causes and consequences 97%
Similar papers in this journal
- Comprehensive taxon sampling and vetted fossils help clarify the time tree of shorebirds (Aves, Charadriiformes) 98%
- A broadly resolved molecular phylogeny of New Zealand cheilostome bryozoans as a framework for hypotheses of morphological evolution 97%
- Total-evidence phylogenetic analysis resolves the evolutionary timescale of mantis shrimps (Stomatopoda) and provides insights into their molecular and morphological evolutionary rates 96%
Similar papers in this journal
- The rediscovery of a relict unlocks the first global phylogeny of whip spiders (Amblypygi) 97%
- Dating in the Dark: Elevated Substitution Rates in Cave Cockroaches (Blattodea: Nocticolidae) Have Negative Impacts on Molecular Date Estimates 97%
- A phylogenomic framework for Vetigastropoda (Mollusca) 96%
Similar papers in this journal
- Origin and evolution of the Haustoriidae (Amphipoda): A eulogy for the Haustoriidira 95%
- First molecular phylogeny of the freshwater planarian genus Girardia (Platyelminthes, Tricladida) unveils hidden taxonomic diversity and initiates resolution of its historical biogeography 93%
- The locomotor behavior of subfossil Malagasy sloth-lemurs (Strepsirrhini: Palaeopropithecidae) and koala-lemurs (Strepsirrhini: Megaladapidae): new insights from limb trabecular bone 92%
"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.