The treeness of the tree of historical trees of life


Autoři: Marie Fisler aff001;  Cédric Crémière aff002;  Pierre Darlu aff003;  Guillaume Lecointre aff001
Působiště autorů: UMR 7205 CNRS-MNHN-SU-EPHE « Institut de Systématique, Evolution et Biodiversité », département « Origines & Évolution », Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France aff001;  Musée d’Histoire Naturelle du Havre, Place du vieux marché, Le Havre, France aff002;  UMR 7206 CNRS-MNHN-UPD « Eco-anthropologie et Ethnobiologie », département « Hommes, Nature et Sociétés », Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France aff003
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 15(1)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0226567

Souhrn

This paper compares and categorizes historical ideas about trees showing relationships among biological entities. The hierarchical structure of a tree is used to test the global consistency of similarities among these ideas; in other words we assess the “treeness” of the tree of historical trees. The collected data are figures and ideas about trees showing relationships among biological entities published or drawn by naturalists from 1555 to 2012. They are coded into a matrix of 235 historical trees and 141 descriptive attributes. From the most parsimonious “tree” of historical trees, treeness is measured by consistency index, retention index and homoplasy excess ratio. This tree is used to create sets or categories of trees, or to study the circulation of ideas. From an unrooted network of historical trees, treeness is measured by the delta-score. This unrooted network is used to measure and visualize treeness. The two approaches show a rather good treeness of the data, with respectively a retention idex of 0.83 and homoplasy excess ratio of 0.74, on one hand, and a delta-score of 0.26 on the other hand. It is interpreted as due to vertical transmission, i.e. an inheritance of shared ideas about biological trees among authors. This tree of trees is then used to test categories previously made. For instance, cladists and gradists are « paraphyletic ». The branches of this tree of trees suggest new categories of tree-thinkers that could have been overlooked by historians or systematists.

Klíčová slova:

Animal phylogenetics – Human evolution – Leaves – Paleogenetics – Phylogenetic analysis – Vertebrates – Phenetic evolution – Phenetics


Zdroje

1. Currie TE, Greenhill SJ, Mace R. Is horizontal transmission really a problem for phylogenetic comparative methods? A simulation study using continuous cultural traits. Phil trans Roy Soc Lond. B (Biol. Sci.). 2010; 365: 3903–3912.

2. Gray RD, Bryant D, Greenhill SJ. On the shape and fabric of human history. Phil trans Roy Soc Lond. B (Biol. Sci.). 2010; 365: 3923–3933.

3. Heggarty P, Maguire W, McMahon A. Splits or waves? Trees or webs? How divergence measures and network analysis can unravel language histories. Phil trans Roy Soc Lond. B (Biol. Sci.). 2010; 365: 3829–3843.

4. Nunn CL, Arnold C, Matthews L, Borgerhoff Mulder M. Simulating trait evolution for cross-cultural comparison. Phil trans Roy Soc Lond. B (Biol. Sci.). 2010; 365: 3807–3819.

5. Brown S, Savage PE, Ko AMS, Stoneking M, Ko YC, Loo JH, Trejaut JA. Correlations in the population structure of music, genes and langage. Proc Roy Soc Lond B. 2014; 281: 2013–2072.

6. Charbonnat P, Ben Hamed M, Lecointre G, editors. Apparenter la pensée ? Vers une phylogénie des concepts savants. Paris: Éditions Matériologiques; 2014.

7. Fisler M, Lecointre G. Categorizing Ideas about Trees: A Tree of Trees. PLoS ONE, 2013; 8(8): e68814. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0068814 23950877

8. Tassy PE. L'arbre à remonter le temps. Paris: Christian Bourgois Éditeur; 1991.

9. Barsanti G. La scala, la mappa, l'albero. Immagini e classificazioni della natura fra sei e ottocento. Firenze: Sansoni; 1992.

10. Ragan MA. Trees and Networks before and after Darwin. Biology Direct. 2009; 4(43), Available from: https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6150-4-43

11. Pietsch T. Trees of Life. A visual History of Evolution. Baltimore: John Hopkins; 2012.

12. Fisler M, Crémière C, Lecointre G. Qu’est-ce qu’un arbre des idées? Explicitation des notions d’arbre et de phylogénie et histoire des représentations de l’arbre. In: Charbonnat P, Ben Hamed M, Lecointre G, editors. Apparenter la pensée. Paris: Éditions Matériologiques; 2014. pp. 103–186.

13. Brower A, De Pinna M. About nothing. Cladistics 2014; 30: 330–336.

14. Gontier N. Depicting the Tree of life: the Philosophical and historical Roots of Evolutionary Tree Diagrams. Evo Edu Outreach. 2011; 4: 515–538.

15. Diderot D, D'Alembert J. Encyclopédie ou Dictionnaire raisonné des sciences, des arts et des métiers. Paris: Briasson; 1751.

16. Schleicher A. Die ersten Spaltungen des indogermanischen Urvolkes. Allgemeine Monatsschrift für Wissenschaft und Literatur 1853; 3: 786–787.

17. Holden CJ. Bantu language trees reflect the spread of farming across sub-Saharan Africa: a maximum-parsimony analysis. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B. 2001; 269: 793–799.

18. Gray RD, Atkinson QD. Language-tree divergence times support the Anatolian theory of Indo-European origin. Nature. 2003; 426: 435–439. doi: 10.1038/nature02029 14647380

19. Hurles ME, Matisoo-Smith E, Gray RD, Penny D. Untangling Polynesian origins: the edge of the knowable. Trends Ecol Evol. 2003; 18(10): 531–540.

20. Nakhleh L, Warnow T, Ringe D, Evans SN. A comparison of phylogenetic reconstruction methods on an Indo-European Dataset. Trans Phil Soc. 2005; 103(2): 171–192.

21. Swofford DL (2002) PAUP*. Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony (*and Other Methods). Version 4. Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinauer Associates; 2002.

22. Kluge AG, Farris JS. Quantitative phyletics and the evolution of anurans. Syst Zool. 1969; 18(1): 1–32.

23. Archie JW. A randomization test for phylogenetic information in systematic data. Syst Zool. 1989; 38: 239–252.

24. Darlu P, Tassy PE. Reconstruction phylogénétique. Concepts et méthodes. Paris: Masson; 1993.

25. Darlu P, Tassy PE. Reconstruction phylogénétique. Concepts et méthodes. 2d ed. Paris: Masson; 2019.

26. Archie JW. Homoplasy excess statistics and retention indices: a reply to Farris. Syst Zool. 1990; 39: 169–174.

27. Huson DH, Bryant D. Application of Phylogenetic Networks in Evolutionary Studies. Mol Biol Evol. 2006; 23(2): 254–267. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msj030 16221896

28. Holland BR, Huber KT, Dress A, Moulton V. D-Plots: a tool for analyzing phylogenetic distance data. Mol Biol Evol. 2002; 19: 2051–2059. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a004030 12446797

29. Bremer K. Branch support and tree stability. Cladistics 1994; 10: 295–304.

30. Christoffersen ML. Cladistic taxonomy, phylogenetic systematics, and evolutionary ranking. Syst Biol. 1995; 44(3): 440–454.

31. Grimoult C. Histoire de l'évolutionnisme contemporain en France (1945–1995). Genève: Droz; 2000.

32. Grimoult C. L'évolution biologique en France: une révolution scientifique, politique et culturelle. Genève: Droz; 2001.

33. Grimoult C. Évolutionnisme et fixisme en France: histoire d'un combat (1800–1882). Paris: CNRS Éditions; 1998.

34. Buican D. L'évolution et les théories évolutionnistes. Paris: Masson; 1997.

35. Gaudant M, Gaudant J. Les théories classiques de l'évolution. Paris: Dunod; 1971.

36. Roger J. Buffon: un philosophe au Jardin du Roi. Paris: Fayard; 1989.

37. Grimoult C. Histoire de l'histoire des sciences. Historiographie de l'évolutionnisme dans le monde francophone. Genève: Droz; 2003.

38. De Quatrefages A. Lamarck. In: De Quatrefages A, editor. Darwin et ses précurseurs français. Étude sur le transformisme. Paris: G. Baillière; 1870. pp. 42–59.

39. Tassy PE. Teilhard de Chardin, l'arbre phylogénétique et l'orthogenèse. In: Athané F, Guinet E, Silberstein M, editors. Émergence et réductions, Matière première, Tome 2. Paris: Syllepse; 2007. pp. 289–309.

40. De Bonis L. Les carnassiers des phosphorites du Quercy: évolution et phylogénie d'après P. Teilhard de Chardin. Annales de paléontologie 2006; 92: 205–215.

41. Wiley EO. Phylogenetics: Theory and Practice of Phylogenetic Systematics. New York: Wiley; 1981.

42. Dupuis C. Willi Hennig's impact on taxonomic thought. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 1984; 15: 1–24.

43. Mayr E. La systémique évolutionniste et les quatre étapes du processus de classification. In: Tassy PE, editor. L'Ordre et la diversité du vivant. Quel statut scientifique pour les classifications biologiques? Paris: Fayard; 1986. pp. 143–160.

44. Carpenter JM. Cladistics of cladists. Cladistics 1987; 3: 363–375.

45. Hull DL. Science as a Process: An Evolutionary Account of the Social and Conceptual Development of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1988.

46. Ebach MC, Morrone JJ, Williams DM. A new cladistics of cladists. Biology and Philosophy. 2008; 23(1): 153–156.

47. Dupuis C. Darwin et les taxonomies d'aujourd'hui. In Tassy PE, editor. L'Ordre et la diversité du vivant. Quel statut scientifique pour les classifications biologiques? Paris: Fayard; 1986. pp. 215–240.

48. Schuh RT. Biological Systematics: Principles and Applications. Ithaca: Cornell University Press; 2000.

49. Dupuis C. Permanence et actualité de la systématique : la “systématique phylogénétique” de W. Hennig. Historique, discussion, choix de références. Cahier des naturalistes, Bull. N. P. n. s. 1978; 341: 1–69.

50. Dupuis C. Regards épistémologiques sur la taxinomie cladiste. Adresse à la onzième session de la Willi Hennig Society Paris, 1992. Cahier des naturalistes, Bull. N. P. n. s. 1992; 482: 29–56.

51. Browne J. Strickland on Natural Systems. In: Brooks JL editor. Just Before the Origin: Alfred Russel Wallace's Theory of Evolution. New York: Columbia University Press; 1985. pp. 96–99.

52. O'Hara RJ. Strickland and Wallace and the systematic argument for evolution. Amer Zool. 1987; 27(4): 107A.

53. O'Hara RJ. Representations of the Natural System in the Nineteenth century. Biology and Philosophy 1991; 6(2): 255–274.

54. Collard M, Shennan SJ, Tehrani JJ. Branching, blending, and the evolution of cultural similarities and differences among human populations. Evol Hum Behav. 2006; 27: 169–184.

55. Le Bomin S, Lecointre G, Heyer H. The Evolution of Musical Diversity: The Key Role of Vertical Transmission. PLoS ONE. 2016; 11(3): e0151570. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0151570 27027305


Článek vyšel v časopise

PLOS One


2020 Číslo 1