Preprint Article Version 1 This version is not peer-reviewed

Perspectives from Montiaceae (Portulacineae) Evolution. I. Phylogeny and Phylogeography

Version 1 : Received: 5 September 2018 / Approved: 5 September 2018 / Online: 5 September 2018 (12:02:42 CEST)

How to cite: Hershkovitz, M.A. Perspectives from Montiaceae (Portulacineae) Evolution. I. Phylogeny and Phylogeography. Preprints 2018, 2018090096 (doi: 10.20944/preprints201809.0096.v1). Hershkovitz, M.A. Perspectives from Montiaceae (Portulacineae) Evolution. I. Phylogeny and Phylogeography. Preprints 2018, 2018090096 (doi: 10.20944/preprints201809.0096.v1).

Abstract

Montiaceae comprise a clade of at least 270 species plus about 20 accepted subspecific taxa, primarily of western America and Australia. The present paper is the first of a two-part work that seeks to evaluate evolutionary theory via metadata analysis of Montiaceae. In particular, it uses metadata analysis to evaluate the theory in theory-laden methods that have been applied in evolutionary analyses of Montiaceae. This part focuses on phylogeny and phylogeography. The second part focuses on phenotypic and ecological diversification. An emergent theme in this paper is the degree to which historical idiosyncrasy during Montiaceae evolution misleads quantitative methods of evolutionary reconstruction and phylogeographic interpretation. This suggests that idiosyncraticity itself is a fundamental property of evolution. The second part of this work elaborates this notion as the Principle of Evolutionary Idiosyncraticity. The present part describes idiosyncraticity in molecular phylogenetic and phylogeographic data and uses this notion to refine ideas on Montiaceae evolution. Phylogenetic metadata conflicts and conflicting phylogeographic interpretations are discussed. I conclude that, owing to PEI, quantitative methods of evolutionary analysis cannot be globally accurate, though they are useful heuristically. In contrast, classical narrative analysis is robust in the face of PEI.

Subject Areas

Montiaceae; phylogeny; phylogeography; long-distance dispersal; idiosyncrasy; Principal of Evolutionary Idiosyncraticity

Comments (7)

Comment 1
Received: 5 September 2018
Commenter: Mark Hershkovitz
The commenter has declared there is no conflict of interests.
Comment: Part 2 of this work will be available shortly.
+ Respond to this comment
Comment 2
Received: 5 September 2018
Commenter: Mark Hershkovitz
The commenter has declared there is no conflict of interests.
Comment: For convenience, here is the link to reference [1]:

https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/201808.0496/v1
+ Respond to this comment
Comment 3
Received: 6 September 2018
Commenter: Mark Hershkovitz
The commenter has declared there is no conflict of interests.
Comment: I am on record for early advocacy of a "young" Portulacineae and consequent LDD explanation of all of its intercontinental disjunctions (H&Z 1997, 2000). Age estimates have increased with each subsequent analysis up to 2018, but still support LDD. That said, I would be ecstatic if I were wrong and Heads and others proved to be correct. That is why I love science. It is ALL about correcting mistakes, including one's own. Those afraid of correcting mistakes have no business in science. My late daddy, Philip Hershkovitz, published a ton (sole author!). He once told me that much of his later work was correcting mistakes in his earlier work. He loved it. He said that not only was he the only neotropical mammalogist knowledgeable enough to correct his mistakes, he was the only one knowledgeable enough to have made them in the first place!

I would be even MORE ecstatic if Biblical Creation proved to be correct. Dad did not write the Bible, of course. One of his great uncles did.
+ Respond to this comment
Comment 4
Received: 6 September 2018
Commenter: Mark Hershkovitz
The commenter has declared there is no conflict of interests.
Comment: ....of course, we will all learn the verdict on Creationism when the Rapture comes. The next predicted date is in 2019. But that individual has a poor prediction track record. Somebody at Yale, I think. After that, 2020 fide Jeanne Dixon. My money is on that one.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_apocalyptic_events
+ Respond to this comment
Comment 5
Received: 9 September 2018
Commenter: Mark Hershkovitz
The commenter has declared there is no conflict of interests.
Comment: Below is a summary of Montiaceae disjunctions of 1000+ km, including overland, excluding anthropogenic disjunctions.

1. SAm Schreiteria – NAm Phemeranthus

2. NAm Phemeranthus – SAm Phemeranthus punae

3. SAm Cistanthe – NAm Cistanthe guadalupensis & C. maritima

4. SAm Philippiamra – NAm Calyptridium

5. SAm Montioideae – Aus Rumicastrum

6. SAm Calandrinia acaulis – NAm Calandrinia acaulis

7. SAm Calandrinia ciliata – NAm Calandrinia ciliata

8. SAm/NAm Calandrinia sect. Calandrinia – NAm Calandrinia menziesii

9. SAm Montioideae – Antarc Hectorelleae

10. NZ Hectorella - Kerg Lyallia

11. SAm Montioideae – NAm Montieae

12. NAm Montia – NZ/Aus Montia sect. Australiensis

13. NZ Montia sect. Australiensis – Aus Montia sect. Australiensis

14. NZ/Aus Montia sect. Australiensis – NAm Montia howellii (not anthro, contra O’Quinn)

15. NAm Montia sect. Montia – SAm Montia meridiensis (? = M. fontana subsp.)

16. NAm Montia fontana – Cosmo Montia fontana (pre-anthro)

17. US/SCan Lewisia pygmaea s. l. – NCan/AK Lewisia pygmaea s. l. (inadequate collecting?)
+ Respond to this comment
Comment 6
Received: 8 November 2018
Commenter: Mark Hershkovitz
The commenter has declared there is no conflict of interests.
Comment: A revision will be posted soon. It expands especially the phylogeographic discussion. Conclusions of the current version are reinforced.
+ Respond to this comment
Comment 7
Received: 21 November 2018
Commenter: Mark Hershkovitz
The commenter has declared there is no conflict of interests.
Comment: A perspective on phylogenomics and its trajectory will be included.
+ Respond to this comment

We encourage comments and feedback from a broad range of readers. See criteria for comments and our diversity statement.

Leave a public comment
Send a private comment to the author(s)
Views 0
Downloads 0
Comments 7
Metrics 0


×
Alerts
Notify me about updates to this article or when a peer-reviewed version is published.