Abstract
BackgroundThe processes governing the origin and maintenance of mimetic phenotypes can only be understood in a phylogenetic framework. Phylogenetic estimates of evolutionary relationships can provide a context for analyses of character evolution; however, when phylogenetic estimates conflict, rigorous analyses of alternative evolutionary histories are necessary to determine the likelihood of a specific history giving rise to the observed pattern of diversity. The polyphenic butterfly Limenitis arthemis provides a case in point. This species is comprised of three lineages, two of which are mimetic and one of which is non-mimetic. Conflicting estimates of the relationships among these three lineages requires direct evaluation of the alternative hypotheses of mimicry evolution.ResultsUsing a coalescent framework, we found support for a sister-taxon relationship between the non-mimetic L. a. arthemis and the mimetic L. a. astyanax, congruent with the previous hypothesis that the non-mimetic form of L. a. arthemis was derived from a mimetic ancestor. We found no support for a mimetic clade (L. a. astyanax + L. a. arizonensis) despite analyzing numerous models of population structure.ConclusionsThese results provide the foundation for future studies of mimicry, which should integrate phylogenetic and developmental analyses of wing pattern formation. We propose future analyses of character evolution accommodate conflicting phylogenetic estimates by explicitly testing alternative evolutionary hypotheses.
Highlights
The processes governing the origin and maintenance of mimetic phenotypes can only be understood in a phylogenetic framework
Empirical phylogenetic trees are estimations, or hypotheses, of the true evolutionary history of a given group, based on a fit to observed data. Such trees can be used as a “best estimate” for studies of character evolution, especially when trees based on different analyses and data converge on the same estimate of evolutionary relationships
Because empirical phylogenetic tree estimates do not always reflect true evolutionary history [5,6], inferring a “best estimate” tree does not eliminate the possibility that an alternative evolutionary history gave rise to the observed pattern of character data
Summary
The processes governing the origin and maintenance of mimetic phenotypes can only be understood in a phylogenetic framework. Empirical phylogenetic trees are estimations, or hypotheses, of the true evolutionary history of a given group, based on a fit to observed data (morphological characters, DNA sequences, etc.). Such trees can be used as a “best estimate” for studies of character evolution, especially when trees based on different analyses and data converge on the same estimate of evolutionary relationships. Because empirical phylogenetic tree estimates do not always reflect true evolutionary history [5,6], inferring a “best estimate” tree does not eliminate the possibility that an alternative evolutionary history gave rise to the observed pattern of character data. Comparisons between means, and trees in this case, must account for the potential variation in the underlying distributions which gave rise to the observed data
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
