Laura Novick and Kefyn Catley have been doing research on the representation of evolutionary relationships. Cladograms like those at the left are the standard way for depicting such relationships. The two cladograms at the left are equivalent in the information they convey, e.g., lizards and birds are more closely related to one another than either is to mammals. They differ only in how the relationships are drawn.
Nonetheless, Novick and Catley suggest that students have less difficulty interpreting cladograms like the one on the left. I just pulled out my copy of Futuyma (the textbook we're using in evolutionary biology this spring), turned to p. 31 where there's a full-page diagram depicting phylogenetic relationships among major groups of vertebrates as inferred from morphology with one inferred from DNA sequences. And which format does Futuyma use? The one on the left.
My students should be happy.
Nonetheless, Novick and Catley suggest that students have less difficulty interpreting cladograms like the one on the left. I just pulled out my copy of Futuyma (the textbook we're using in evolutionary biology this spring), turned to p. 31 where there's a full-page diagram depicting phylogenetic relationships among major groups of vertebrates as inferred from morphology with one inferred from DNA sequences. And which format does Futuyma use? The one on the left.
My students should be happy.
Hat tip: Andrew Gelman
Leave a comment