Abstract

There are many cases of incongruence between phylogenetichypotheses produced from morphological data and those producedfrom molecular data. In such instances, many researchersprefer to accept the results of molecular phylogenies. For example,in a recent analysis of primate phylogenies based on craniodentalcharacters, Collard and Wood [Collard M, Wood BA (2000) Proc NatlAcad Sci USA 97:5003–5006] argued that, because craniodentaldata do not yield relationships concordant with molecular studies,the results of studies that employ such characters must be consideredsuspect. As most of our knowledge of mammalian evolutionand phylogenetic history comes from craniodental fossils, theseresults have dramatic implications. However, the aforementionedanalysis did not take into account the potentially confoundingeffects of allometry on quantitative craniodental characters. In thisarticle, we employ a previously undescribed narrow allometriccoding method that accounts for such confounding influences inphylogenetic analyses of craniodental morphology. By using essentiallythe same raw data set as Collard and Wood [Collard M,Wood BA (2000) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97:5003–5006], 65 quantitativecraniodental characters were adjusted in a parsimony analysisfor the primate tribe Papionini, a group of monkeys argued todisplay extensive homoplasy. The resulting phylogenetic tree wascongruent with the phylogenetic tree based on molecular data forthese species, thereby meeting the ‘‘criterion of congruence.’’These results suggest that morphological data, when treatedproperly, can be considered as reliable as molecular data in phylogeneticreconstruction. Rather than accepting phylogenetic hypothesesfrom one data source over another, cases of incongruenceshould be examined with greater scrutiny.