Abstract:Divergence time estimation-the calibration of a phylogeny to geological time-is an integral first step in modeling the tempo of biological evolution (traits and lineages). However, despite increasingly sophisticated methods to infer divergence times from molecular genetic sequences, the estimated age of many nodes across the tree of life contrast significantly and consistently with timeframes conveyed by the fossil record. This is perhaps best exemplified by crown angiosperms, where molecular clock (Triassic) estimates predate the oldest (Early Cretaceous) undisputed angiosperm fossils by tens of millions of years or more. While the incompleteness of the fossil record is a common concern, issues of data limitation and model inadequacy are viable (if underexplored) alternative explanations. In this vein, Beaulieu et al. (2015) convincingly demonstrated how methods of divergence time inference can be misled by both (i) extreme state-dependent molecular substitution rate heterogeneity and (ii) biased sampling of representative major lineages. These results demonstrate the impact of (potentially common) model violations. Here, we suggest another potential challenge: that the configuration of the statistical inference problem (i.e., the parameters, their relationships, and associated priors) alone may preclude the reconstruction of the paleontological timeframe for the crown age of angiosperms. We demonstrate, through sampling from the joint prior (formed by combining the tree (diversification) prior with the calibration densities specified for fossil-calibrated nodes) that with no data present at all, that an Early Cretaceous crown angiosperms is rejected (i.e., has essentially zero probability). More worrisome, however, is that for the 24 nodes calibrated by fossils, almost all have indistinguishable marginal prior and posterior age distributions when employing routine lognormal fossil calibration priors. These results indicate that there is inadequate information in the data to over-rule the joint prior. Given that these calibrated nodes are strategically placed in disparate regions of the tree, they act to anchor the tree scaffold, and so the posterior inference for the tree as a whole is largely determined by the pseudodata present in the (often arbitrary) calibration densities. We recommend, as for any Bayesian analysis, that marginal prior and posterior distributions be carefully compared to determine whether signal is coming from the data or prior belief, especially for parameters of direct interest. This recommendation is not novel. However, given how rarely such checks are carried out in evolutionary biology, it bears repeating. Our results demonstrate the fundamental importance of prior/posterior comparisons in any Bayesian analysis, and we hope that they further encourage both researchers and journals to consistently adopt this crucial step as standard practice. Finally, we note that the results presented here do not refute the biological modeling concerns identified by Beaulieu et al. (2015). Both sets of issues remain apposite to the goals of accurate divergence time estimation, and only by considering them in tandem can we move forward more confidently.

Phylogenetic uncertainty revisited: Implications for ecological analyses

Uncertainty in phylogenetic tree estimates

Embracing uncertainty: The way forward in plant fossil phylogenetics

No substitute for real data: phylogenies from birth-death polytomy resolvers should not be used for many downstream comparative analyses

[The Impact of Phylogenetic Uncertainty on the Metrics of Community Phylogenetic Structure].

The Past Sure is Tense: On Interpreting Phylogenetic Divergence Time Estimates

Revealing uncertainty in the status of biodiversity change

Implications of gene tree heterogeneity on downstream phylogenetic analyses: A case study employing the Fair Proportion index

Evaluating UCE data adequacy and integrating uncertainty in a comprehensive phylogeny of ants

A tale of too many trees: a conundrum for phylogenetic regression

Evaluating the Performance of Probabilistic Algorithms for Phylogenetic Analysis of Big Morphological Datasets: A Simulation Study

Categorical edge-based analyses of phylogenomic data reveal conflicting signals for difficult relationships in the avian tree

The Untapped Potential of Tree Size in Reconstructing Evolutionary and Epidemiological Dynamics

Diversity dynamics in Nymphalidae butterflies: Effect of phylogenetic uncertainty on diversification rate shift estimates

Taxon Sampling Effects on the Quantification and Comparison of Community Phylogenetic Diversity

Climates and clades: biased methods, biased results

Five Statistical Questions about the Tree of Life

Probabilistic methods surpass parsimony when assessing clade support in phylogenetic analyses of discrete morphological data

On the importance of assessing topological convergence in Bayesian phylogenetic inference

The missing link in biogeographic reconstruction: Accounting for lineage extinction rewrites history

New prospects in the detection and comparative analysis of hybridization in the tree of life