Data from: Mosaic evolution underlies feliform morphological disparity
Data files
May 21, 2024 version files 1.66 MB
-
README.md
2.42 KB
-
Supplemental_data_1_Genbank_acc.xlsx
15.90 KB
-
Supplemental_data_5_morph_matrix.nex
50.29 KB
-
Supplemental_data_6_GSS_partition_schemes.zip
153.97 KB
-
Supplemental_data_7_BEAST2_total_evidence.xml
1.44 MB
Abstract
Constraint is a fundamental concept in evolutionary theory. Morphology and ecology both are limited by functional, historical, and developmental factors to a subset of the theoretical range species could occupy. Cat-like carnivorans (Feliformia) offer a unique opportunity to investigate phenotypic constraint, as several feliform clades are purported to be limited to generalized ecomorphological roles, while others possessing extremely specialized durophagous (bone-crushing) and sabertooth morphology. We investigated the evolutionary history of feliforms by considering their phylogeny, morphological disparity and rates of evolution. We recover results that show a mosaic pattern exists in the degree of morphological disparity per anatomical region per clade and ecology. Non-hypercarnivores, such as viverrids (civets and genets), Malagasy euplerids and lophocyonids (extinct hypocarnivores) have the greatest dental disparity, while hypercarnivores (felids, nimravids, many hyaenids) have the lowest dental disparity but highest cranial and mandibular disparity (excluding dentition). However, high disparity is not necessarily associated with high rates of evolution, but instead with ecological radiations. We reveal that relationships between specialization and disparity are not as simple as past research has concluded. Instead, morphological disparity results from an anatomical mosaic of evolution, where different ecologies correlate with and likely channel unique patterns/combinations of disparity per anatomical partition.
https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.pk0p2ngv7
Description of the data and file structure
This research is of two parts. The first performed a total-evidence (molecular, e.g. DNA, and morphology) phylogenetic analysis to create a family tree of relationships amongst the studies species of interest. The second part used the morphological data (description of anatomy) to assess disparity (range of variation) and rates of evolution for the species of interest. Data is sequentially organized from collection to analysis.
Sharing/Access information
Data was derived from the following sources:
- Reposited molecular data in GenBank, accession numbers found in Supplemental Data 1.
- Museum collection specimens via direct observation/measurement and published literature as listed in Supplemental Data 3.
Code/Software
The phylogenetic analysis was run in BEAST2 while all other analyses in R. The necessary data and scripts (annotated) to recreate these analyses are included in Supplemental files 5-8.
EXPLANATION OF SUPPLEMENTAL DATA
Supplemental data 1_Genbank_acc.xlsx – Genbank accession numbers for molecular data of this study.
Supplemental data 2_PartFind2_files.zip – Run files (.cfg, .phy), log (.txt) and best supported partitioning scheme (.txt) for the PartitionFinder2 analysis.
Supplemental data 3_morph_data_sources.docx – Table of all museum specimens and literature used in the scoring of morphological characters.
Supplemental data 4_morph_character_list.docx – Character list, with accompanying states used to score all taxa for 325 morphological characters. This file also includes citations for the source of characters where appropriate.
Supplemental data 5_morph_matrix.nex – Nexus file containing the character matrix of the morphological data used in the phylogenetic, disparity and rates of evolution analyses.
Supplemental data 6_GSS_partition_schemes.zip – xml run files containing differential partitioning schemes of the morphological data of the phylogenetic analysis.
Supplemental data 7_BEAST2_total_evidence.xml – xml run file of the total-evidence BEAST2 phylogenetic analysis.
Supplemental data 8_R_scripts.zip – R scripts and associated data to run disparity and evolutionary rate analyses.
Morphological information was taken from observation and measurment of museum curated fossil and modern skeletal specimens and published datsets from scientifc literature. This was combined with molecular sequence data (nuclear and mitochondrial) for extant and recently extinct taxa downloaded form GenBank. The best partition and evolutionary models for phylogenetic analysis was determined using Stetting Stone analysis for the morphological data, while PartitionFinder 2 for the moecluar data. From these data, a total-evidence Bayesian phylogentic analysis was run in Beast. Rates of evolution and morphological disparity were then calculated from the morphological character dataset in the R Claddis package across a sample of the posterior trees in the phylogentic analysis, as well as the MCC tree.