Do morphometric data improve phylogenetic reconstruction? A systematic review and assessment.

Abstract

Background: Isolating phylogenetic signal from morphological data is crucial for accurately merging fossils into the tree of life and for calibrating molecular dating. However, subjective character definition is a major limitation which can introduce biases that mislead phylogenetic inferences and divergence time estimation. The use of quantitative data, e.g., geometric morphometric (GMM; shape) data can allow for more objective integration of morphological data into phylogenetic inference. This systematic review describes the current state of the field in using continuous morphometric data (e.g., GMM data) for phylogenetic reconstruction and assesses the efficacy of these data compared to discrete characters using the PRISMA-EcoEvo v1.0. reporting guideline, and offers some pathways for approaching this task with GMM data. A comprehensive search string yielded 11,123 phylogenetic studies published in English up to Oct 2023 in the Web of Science database. Title and abstract screening removed 10,975 articles, and full-text screening was performed for 132 articles. Of these, a total of twelve articles met final inclusion criteria and were used for downstream analyses.

Results: Phylogenetic performance was compared between approaches that employed continuous morphometric and discrete morphological data. Overall, the reconstructed phylogenies did not show increased resolution or accuracy (i.e., benchmarked against molecular phylogenies) as continuous data alone or combined with discrete morphological datasets.

Conclusions: An exhaustive search of the literature for existing empirical continuous data resulted in a total of twelve articles for final inclusion following title/abstract, and full-text screening. Our study was performed under a rigorous framework for systematic reviews, which showed that the lack of available comparisons between discrete and continuous data hinders our understanding of the performance of continuous data. Our study demonstrates the problem surrounding the efficacy of continuous data as remaining relatively intractable despite an exhaustive search, due in part to the difficulty in obtaining relevant comparisons from the literature. Thus, we implore researchers to address this issue with studies that collect discrete and continuous data sets with directly comparable properties (i.e., describing shape, or size).