Back

Statistical Model Comparison Supports a Pitcher Origin of Utricularia Suction Traps

Obara, M.; Matzke, N. J.; Fullmer, M. S.; Wright, S. D.

2026-04-21 evolutionary biology
10.64898/2026.04.19.719479 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Carnivorous plants have been the subject of fascination and research ever since Darwin codified the subject in his 1875 book Insectivorous Plants. The origin of complex trapping mechanisms from structures adapted for photosynthesis is of particular interest. While Darwin proposed a plausible scenario for the origin of the snap traps of the Venus flytrap from simpler adhesive traps, the origin of the tiny and complex bladder traps of the genus Utricularia mystified Darwin and many subsequent workers, despite Utricularia being the most diverse genus of carnivorous plants. In this study, we test the "pitcher hypothesis," which proposes that Utricularia bladder traps evolved gradually from an adhesive trap ancestor, via an extinct pitcher trap intermediate. To overcome the lack of any fossil evidence for this scenario, we constructed a variety of continuous-time Markov chain (CTMC) models, each of which consists of a transition matrix allowing or disallowing certain transitions between 11 types of traps. We assembled available phylogenetic trees for 436 carnivorous plant species and noncarnivorous outgroups, classified each species by trap type, and statistically compared the fit of 18 CTMC models using Maximum Likelihood and statistical model comparison with Akaike Information Criterion. The best-fitting model (PH-7R-AAI), consistent with our pitcher hypothesis, had an AIC weight of 60%, with two similar models accounting for the remaining 40%. These results support a circuitous stepwise evolutionary pathway to the bladder trap, and demonstrate how a detailed stepwise evolutionary scenario may be statistically tested even without direct fossil evidence of key intermediate stages.

Matching journals

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

1
Current Biology
596 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
50.7%
50% of probability mass above
2
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
341 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.7%
3
New Phytologist
309 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.9%
4
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 32%
3.9%
5
BMC Ecology and Evolution
49 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
3.5%
6
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 25%
2.5%
7
Systematic Biology
121 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.5%
8
Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution
61 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.5%
9
Molecular Ecology
304 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.4%
10
Molecular Biology and Evolution
488 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.0%
11
PLOS Biology
408 papers in training set
Top 7%
2.0%
12
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 8%
1.7%
13
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 50%
1.2%
14
Nature Ecology & Evolution
113 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.1%
15
Communications Biology
886 papers in training set
Top 17%
0.9%
16
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 65%
0.9%
17
Genome Biology and Evolution
280 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
18
Evolution Letters
71 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
19
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution
60 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
20
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B
51 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
21
Ecology and Evolution
232 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.7%
22
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 64%
0.7%
23
Journal of Evolutionary Biology
98 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
24
The American Naturalist
114 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
25
Evolution
199 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
26
iScience
1063 papers in training set
Top 38%
0.6%
27
Plants
39 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%