Data from: Dental data perform relatively poorly in reconstructing mammal phylogenies: morphological partitions evaluated with molecular benchmarks

Phylogenetic trees underpin reconstructions of evolutionary history and
tests of evolutionary hypotheses. They are inferred from both molecular
and morphological data, yet the relative value of morphology has been
questioned in this context due to perceived homoplasy, developmental
linkage, and nonindependence of characters. Nevertheless, fossil data are
limited to incomplete subsets of preserved morphology, and different
regions are treated as equivalent. Through meta-analysis of 40 data sets,
we show here that the dental and osteological characters of mammals convey
significantly different phylogenetic signals, and that osteological
characters are significantly more compatible with molecular trees.
Furthermore, the application of simplified paleontological filters
(retaining only dental data) results in significantly greater loss of
phylogenetic signal than random character ablation. Although the mammal
fossil record is largely comprised of teeth, dental data alone are
generally found to be less reliable for phylogenetic reconstruction given
their incongruence with osteological and molecular data. These findings
highlight the need for rigorous meta-analyses of distributions of
homoplasy in morphological data. These tests, and consequent refinements
to phylogenetic analyses that they permit, promise to improve the quality
of all macroevolutionary studies that hinge on accurate trees.