{"title":"古人类系统发育重建中探索性数据分析的新方法","authors":"Joanna R. Gautney","doi":"10.1016/j.jhevol.2023.103412","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The phylogenetic relationships between fossil hominin taxa have been a contentious topic for decades. Recent discoveries of new taxa, rather than resolving the issue, have only further confused it. Compounding this problem are the limitations of some of the tools frequently used by paleoanthropologists to analyze these relationships. Most commonly, phylogenetic questions are investigated using analytical methods such as maximum parsimony and Bayesian analysis. While these are useful analytical tools, these tree-building methods can have limitations when investigating taxa that may have complex evolutionary histories. Exploratory data analysis can provide information about patterns in a dataset that are obscured by tree-based methods. These patterns include phylogenetic signal conflict, which is not depicted in tree-based methods. Signal conflict can have a number of sources, including methodological issues with character choice, taxonomic issues, homoplasy, and gene flow between taxa. In this study, an exploratory data analysis of fossil hominin morphological data is conducted using the tree-based analytical method neighbor-joining and the network-based analytical method neighbor-net with the goal of visualizing phylogenetic signal conflict within a hominin morphological data set. The data set is divided into cranial regions, and each cranial region is analyzed individually to investigate which regions of the skull contain the highest levels of signal conflict. Results of this analysis show that conflicting phylogenetic signals are present in the hominin fossil record during the relatively speciose period between 3 and 1 Ma, and they also indicate that levels of signal conflict vary by cranial region. Possible sources of these conflicting signals are then explored. Exploratory data analyses such as this can be a useful tool in generating phylogenetic hypotheses and in refining character choice. This study also highlights the value network-based approaches can bring to the hominin phylogenetic analysis toolkit.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":54805,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Human Evolution","volume":"182 ","pages":"Article 103412"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A new approach to exploratory data analysis in hominin phylogenetic reconstruction\",\"authors\":\"Joanna R. Gautney\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jhevol.2023.103412\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>The phylogenetic relationships between fossil hominin taxa have been a contentious topic for decades. Recent discoveries of new taxa, rather than resolving the issue, have only further confused it. Compounding this problem are the limitations of some of the tools frequently used by paleoanthropologists to analyze these relationships. Most commonly, phylogenetic questions are investigated using analytical methods such as maximum parsimony and Bayesian analysis. While these are useful analytical tools, these tree-building methods can have limitations when investigating taxa that may have complex evolutionary histories. Exploratory data analysis can provide information about patterns in a dataset that are obscured by tree-based methods. These patterns include phylogenetic signal conflict, which is not depicted in tree-based methods. Signal conflict can have a number of sources, including methodological issues with character choice, taxonomic issues, homoplasy, and gene flow between taxa. In this study, an exploratory data analysis of fossil hominin morphological data is conducted using the tree-based analytical method neighbor-joining and the network-based analytical method neighbor-net with the goal of visualizing phylogenetic signal conflict within a hominin morphological data set. The data set is divided into cranial regions, and each cranial region is analyzed individually to investigate which regions of the skull contain the highest levels of signal conflict. Results of this analysis show that conflicting phylogenetic signals are present in the hominin fossil record during the relatively speciose period between 3 and 1 Ma, and they also indicate that levels of signal conflict vary by cranial region. Possible sources of these conflicting signals are then explored. Exploratory data analyses such as this can be a useful tool in generating phylogenetic hypotheses and in refining character choice. This study also highlights the value network-based approaches can bring to the hominin phylogenetic analysis toolkit.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54805,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Human Evolution\",\"volume\":\"182 \",\"pages\":\"Article 103412\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Human Evolution\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"89\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004724842300091X\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"地球科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ANTHROPOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Human Evolution","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004724842300091X","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
A new approach to exploratory data analysis in hominin phylogenetic reconstruction
The phylogenetic relationships between fossil hominin taxa have been a contentious topic for decades. Recent discoveries of new taxa, rather than resolving the issue, have only further confused it. Compounding this problem are the limitations of some of the tools frequently used by paleoanthropologists to analyze these relationships. Most commonly, phylogenetic questions are investigated using analytical methods such as maximum parsimony and Bayesian analysis. While these are useful analytical tools, these tree-building methods can have limitations when investigating taxa that may have complex evolutionary histories. Exploratory data analysis can provide information about patterns in a dataset that are obscured by tree-based methods. These patterns include phylogenetic signal conflict, which is not depicted in tree-based methods. Signal conflict can have a number of sources, including methodological issues with character choice, taxonomic issues, homoplasy, and gene flow between taxa. In this study, an exploratory data analysis of fossil hominin morphological data is conducted using the tree-based analytical method neighbor-joining and the network-based analytical method neighbor-net with the goal of visualizing phylogenetic signal conflict within a hominin morphological data set. The data set is divided into cranial regions, and each cranial region is analyzed individually to investigate which regions of the skull contain the highest levels of signal conflict. Results of this analysis show that conflicting phylogenetic signals are present in the hominin fossil record during the relatively speciose period between 3 and 1 Ma, and they also indicate that levels of signal conflict vary by cranial region. Possible sources of these conflicting signals are then explored. Exploratory data analyses such as this can be a useful tool in generating phylogenetic hypotheses and in refining character choice. This study also highlights the value network-based approaches can bring to the hominin phylogenetic analysis toolkit.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Human Evolution concentrates on publishing the highest quality papers covering all aspects of human evolution. The central focus is aimed jointly at paleoanthropological work, covering human and primate fossils, and at comparative studies of living species, including both morphological and molecular evidence. These include descriptions of new discoveries, interpretative analyses of new and previously described material, and assessments of the phylogeny and paleobiology of primate species. Submissions should address issues and questions of broad interest in paleoanthropology.