Search for: All records

Abstract Estimating speciation and extinction rates is essential for understanding past and present biodiversity, but is challenging given the incompleteness of the rock and fossil records. Interest in this topic has led to a divergent suite of independent methods—paleontological estimates based on sampled stratigraphic ranges and phylogenetic estimates based on the observed branching times in a given phylogeny of living species. The fossilized birth–death (FBD) process is a model that explicitly recognizes that the branching events in a phylogenetic tree and sampled fossils were generated by the same underlying diversification process. A crucial advantage of this model is that it incorporates the possibility that some species may never be sampled. Here, we present an FBD model that estimates tree-wide diversification rates from stratigraphic range data when the underlying phylogeny of the fossil taxa may be unknown. The model can be applied when only occurrence data for taxonomically identified fossils are available, but still accounts for the incomplete phylogenetic structure of the data. We tested this new model using simulations and focused on how inferences are impacted by incomplete fossil recovery. We compared our approach with a phylogenetic model that does not incorporate incomplete species sampling and to three fossil-based alternatives for estimating diversification rates, including the widely implemented boundary-crosser and three-timer methods. The results of our simulations demonstrate that estimates under the FBD model are robust and more accurate than the alternative methods, particularly when fossil data are sparse, as the FBD model incorporates incomplete species sampling explicitly. 

Myriad branches in the tree of life are intertwined through ecological relationships. Biologists have long hypothesized that intimate symbioses between lineages can influence diversification patterns to the extent that it leaves a topological imprint on the phylogenetic trees of interacting clades. Over the past few decades, cophylogenetic methods development has provided a toolkit for identifying such histories of codiversification, yet it is often difficult to determine which tools best suit the task at hand. In this review, we organize currently available cophylogenetic methods into three categories—pattern-based statistics, event-scoring methods, and more recently developed generative model–based methods—and discuss their assumptions and appropriateness for different types of cophylogenetic questions. We classify cophylogenetic systems based on their biological properties to provide a framework for empiricists investigating the macroevolution of symbioses. In addition, we provide recommendations for the next generation of cophylogenetic models that we hope will facilitate further methods development.