Bias and sensitivity in the placement of fossil taxa resulting from interpretations of missing data

The utility of fossils in evolutionary contexts is dependent on their accurate placement in phylogenetic frameworks, yet intrinsic and widespread missing data make this problematic. The complex taphonomic processes occurring during fossilization can make it difficult to distinguish absence from non-preservation, especially in the case of exceptionally preserved soft-tissue fossils: is a particular morphological character (e.g. appendage, tentacle or nerve) missing from a fossil because it was never there (phylogenetic absence), or just happened to not be preserved (taphonomic loss)? Missing data has not been tested in the context of interpretation of non-present anatomy nor in the context of directional shifts and biases in affinity. Here, complete taxa, both simulated and empirical, are subjected to data loss through the replacement of present entries (1s) with either missing (?s) or absent (0s) entries. Both cause taxa to drift down trees, from their original position, toward the root...