Data from: Parsimony, not Bayesian analysis, recovers more stratigraphically congruent phylogenetic trees

Reconstructing evolutionary histories requires accurate phylogenetic trees. Recent simulation studies suggest that probabilistic phylogenetic analyses of morphological data are more accurate than traditional parsimony techniques. Here we use empirical data to compare Bayesian and parsimony phylogenies in terms of their congruence with the distribution of age ranges of the component taxa. Analysis of 167 independent morphological data matrices of fossil tetrapods finds that Bayesian trees exhibit significantly lower stratigraphic congruence than the equivalent parsimony trees. As such, taking stratigraphic data as an independent benchmark indicates that parsimony analyses are more accurate for phylogenetic reconstruction of morphological data. The discrepancy between simulated and empirical studies may result from historic data peaking practises or some complexities of empirical data as yet unaccounted for.

演化历史的重建，离不开精准的系统发育树（phylogenetic tree）。既往模拟研究表明，针对形态学数据的概率型系统发育分析，其准确性优于传统简约法（parsimony）。本研究依托实证数据，基于组成类群的年龄范围分布的一致性，对比贝叶斯与简约法构建的系统发育树的表现。对167组独立的化石四足动物形态学数据矩阵的分析结果显示，贝叶斯系统发育树的地层一致性（stratigraphic congruence）显著低于对应的简约法系统发育树。据此，若将地层数据作为独立评估基准，则可得出结论：在形态学数据的系统发育重建工作中，简约法分析的准确性更高。模拟研究与实证研究之间的差异，可能源于历史数据峰值处理实践，或是实证数据中尚未被纳入考量的各类复杂性。