Premium
Critique of parsimony analysis of endemicity as a method of historical biogeography
Author(s) -
Brooks Daniel R.,
Van Veller Marco G. P.
Publication year - 2003
Publication title -
journal of biogeography
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.7
H-Index - 158
eISSN - 1365-2699
pISSN - 0305-0270
DOI - 10.1046/j.1365-2699.2003.00848.x
Subject(s) - vicariance , biogeography , cladistics , maximum parsimony , biological dispersal , biology , evolutionary biology , phylogenetic tree , taxon , ecology , zoology , phylogeography , demography , population , sociology , genetics , clade , gene
Aim Assess the value of parsimony analysis of endemism as either an a priori (cladistic) and an a posteriori (phylogenetic) method of historical biogeography. Location World‐wide. Methods Parsimony analysis of endemicity (PAE) and Brooks parsimony analysis (BPA). Results Parsimony analysis of endemicity is capable of finding correct and unambiguous area relationships only under scenarios of vicariance in combination with non‐response to vicariance or extinction. An empirical comparison between PAE and BPA, using the poeciliid fish genera Heterandria and Xiphophorus , demonstrates that PAE fails to document much of the historical complexity in this relatively simple system. Main conclusions The a priori assumptions of PAE are far more restrictive than those made by other a priori methods, limiting its utility as a method of cladistic biogeography. The inability of PAE to detect perfect vicariance or biogeographical histories involving dispersal, renders it unsuitable as a method of phylogenetic biogeography.