Bayesian analysis of a morphological supermatrix sheds light on controversial fossil hominin relationships

Mana Dembo, Nicholas J Matzke, Arne Ø Mooers, Mark Collard

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

73 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The phylogenetic relationships of several hominin species remain controversial. Two methodological issues contribute to the uncertainty-use of partial, inconsistent datasets and reliance on phylogenetic methods that are ill-suited to testing competing hypotheses. Here, we report a study designed to overcome these issues. We first compiled a supermatrix of craniodental characters for all widely accepted hominin species. We then took advantage of recently developed Bayesian methods for building trees of serially sampled tips to test among hypotheses that have been put forward in three of the most important current debates in hominin phylogenetics--the relationship between Australopithecus sediba and Homo, the taxonomic status of the Dmanisi hominins, and the place of the so-called hobbit fossils from Flores, Indonesia, in the hominin tree. Based on our results, several published hypotheses can be statistically rejected. For example, the data do not support the claim that Dmanisi hominins and all other early Homo specimens represent a single species, nor that the hobbit fossils are the remains of small-bodied modern humans, one of whom had Down syndrome. More broadly, our study provides a new baseline dataset for future work on hominin phylogeny and illustrates the promise of Bayesian approaches for understanding hominin phylogenetic relationships.

Original languageEnglish
Article number20150943
JournalProceedings of the Royal Society of London. B, Biological Sciences
Volume282
Issue number1812
Early online date22 Jul 2015
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 7 Aug 2015

Fingerprint

Fossils
Bayes Theorem
Bayesian analysis
Hominidae
Bayesian theory
fossils
fossil
phylogenetics
phylogeny
Testing
Homo
Indonesia
hypothesis testing
Down syndrome
uncertainty
testing
Phylogeny
Uncertainty
Down Syndrome
method

Keywords

  • Human Origins
  • Phylogeny
  • Bayesian
  • Morphological analysis

Cite this

Bayesian analysis of a morphological supermatrix sheds light on controversial fossil hominin relationships. / Dembo, Mana; Matzke, Nicholas J; Mooers, Arne Ø; Collard, Mark.

In: Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. B, Biological Sciences, Vol. 282, No. 1812, 20150943, 07.08.2015.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{ab858851a60c4dd080b1722cb7bdaba7,
title = "Bayesian analysis of a morphological supermatrix sheds light on controversial fossil hominin relationships",
abstract = "The phylogenetic relationships of several hominin species remain controversial. Two methodological issues contribute to the uncertainty-use of partial, inconsistent datasets and reliance on phylogenetic methods that are ill-suited to testing competing hypotheses. Here, we report a study designed to overcome these issues. We first compiled a supermatrix of craniodental characters for all widely accepted hominin species. We then took advantage of recently developed Bayesian methods for building trees of serially sampled tips to test among hypotheses that have been put forward in three of the most important current debates in hominin phylogenetics--the relationship between Australopithecus sediba and Homo, the taxonomic status of the Dmanisi hominins, and the place of the so-called hobbit fossils from Flores, Indonesia, in the hominin tree. Based on our results, several published hypotheses can be statistically rejected. For example, the data do not support the claim that Dmanisi hominins and all other early Homo specimens represent a single species, nor that the hobbit fossils are the remains of small-bodied modern humans, one of whom had Down syndrome. More broadly, our study provides a new baseline dataset for future work on hominin phylogeny and illustrates the promise of Bayesian approaches for understanding hominin phylogenetic relationships.",
keywords = "Human Origins, Phylogeny, Bayesian, Morphological analysis",
author = "Mana Dembo and Matzke, {Nicholas J} and Mooers, {Arne {\O}} and Mark Collard",
note = "{\circledC} 2015 The Author(s). Acknowledgements We thank the members of HESP and FAB* at SFU, as well as Yoel Rak, Charles Roseman and Bernard Wood for helpful comments and suggestions. We are also grateful to Norman Macleod, Marta Mirazon Lahr, Kieran McNulty and an anonymous reviewer for constructive comments on an earlier version of this manuscript",
year = "2015",
month = "8",
day = "7",
doi = "10.1098/rspb.2015.0943",
language = "English",
volume = "282",
journal = "Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. B, Biological Sciences",
issn = "0962-8452",
publisher = "ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY",
number = "1812",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Bayesian analysis of a morphological supermatrix sheds light on controversial fossil hominin relationships

AU - Dembo, Mana

AU - Matzke, Nicholas J

AU - Mooers, Arne Ø

AU - Collard, Mark

N1 - © 2015 The Author(s). Acknowledgements We thank the members of HESP and FAB* at SFU, as well as Yoel Rak, Charles Roseman and Bernard Wood for helpful comments and suggestions. We are also grateful to Norman Macleod, Marta Mirazon Lahr, Kieran McNulty and an anonymous reviewer for constructive comments on an earlier version of this manuscript

PY - 2015/8/7

Y1 - 2015/8/7

N2 - The phylogenetic relationships of several hominin species remain controversial. Two methodological issues contribute to the uncertainty-use of partial, inconsistent datasets and reliance on phylogenetic methods that are ill-suited to testing competing hypotheses. Here, we report a study designed to overcome these issues. We first compiled a supermatrix of craniodental characters for all widely accepted hominin species. We then took advantage of recently developed Bayesian methods for building trees of serially sampled tips to test among hypotheses that have been put forward in three of the most important current debates in hominin phylogenetics--the relationship between Australopithecus sediba and Homo, the taxonomic status of the Dmanisi hominins, and the place of the so-called hobbit fossils from Flores, Indonesia, in the hominin tree. Based on our results, several published hypotheses can be statistically rejected. For example, the data do not support the claim that Dmanisi hominins and all other early Homo specimens represent a single species, nor that the hobbit fossils are the remains of small-bodied modern humans, one of whom had Down syndrome. More broadly, our study provides a new baseline dataset for future work on hominin phylogeny and illustrates the promise of Bayesian approaches for understanding hominin phylogenetic relationships.

AB - The phylogenetic relationships of several hominin species remain controversial. Two methodological issues contribute to the uncertainty-use of partial, inconsistent datasets and reliance on phylogenetic methods that are ill-suited to testing competing hypotheses. Here, we report a study designed to overcome these issues. We first compiled a supermatrix of craniodental characters for all widely accepted hominin species. We then took advantage of recently developed Bayesian methods for building trees of serially sampled tips to test among hypotheses that have been put forward in three of the most important current debates in hominin phylogenetics--the relationship between Australopithecus sediba and Homo, the taxonomic status of the Dmanisi hominins, and the place of the so-called hobbit fossils from Flores, Indonesia, in the hominin tree. Based on our results, several published hypotheses can be statistically rejected. For example, the data do not support the claim that Dmanisi hominins and all other early Homo specimens represent a single species, nor that the hobbit fossils are the remains of small-bodied modern humans, one of whom had Down syndrome. More broadly, our study provides a new baseline dataset for future work on hominin phylogeny and illustrates the promise of Bayesian approaches for understanding hominin phylogenetic relationships.

KW - Human Origins

KW - Phylogeny

KW - Bayesian

KW - Morphological analysis

U2 - 10.1098/rspb.2015.0943

DO - 10.1098/rspb.2015.0943

M3 - Article

VL - 282

JO - Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. B, Biological Sciences

JF - Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. B, Biological Sciences

SN - 0962-8452

IS - 1812

M1 - 20150943

ER -