DOI: 10.5061/dryad.26m66
title: Data from: The more, the better: the use of multiple landmark configurations to solve the phylogenetic relationships in Musteloids

description: Although the use of landmark data to study shape changes along a
 phylogenetic tree has become a common practice in evolutionary studies,
 the role of this sort of data for the inference of phylogenetic
 relationships remains under debate. Theoretical issues aside, the very
 existence of historical information in landmark data has been challenged,
 since phylogenetic analyses have often shown little congruence with
 alternative sources of evidence. However, most analyses conducted in the
 past were based upon a single landmark configuration, leaving unsettled
 whether the incorporation of multiple configurations may improve the
 rather poor performance of this data source in most previous phylogenetic
 analyses. In the present study we present a phylogenetic analysis of
 landmark data that combines information derived from several skeletal
 structures in order to derive a phylogenetic tree for musteloids. The
 analysis includes nine configurations representing different skeletal
 structures for 24 species. The resulting tree presents several notable
 concordances with phylogenetic hypotheses derived from molecular data. In
 particular, Mephitidae, Procyonidae, and Lutrinae plus the genera Martes,
 Mustela, Galictis, and Procyon were retrieved as monophyletic. In
 addition, other groupings were in agreement with molecular phylogenies or
 presented only minor discordances. Complementary analyses have also
 indicated that the results improve substantially when an increasing number
 of landmark configurations are included in the analysis. The results
 presented here thus highlight the importance of combining information from
 multiple structures in order to derive phylogenetic hypotheses from
 landmark data.
description: Supplementary_data_1Specimens analyzed indicating collection number, species, and views included. CV- ventral view of cranium, AHu- cranial view of the distal extreme of humerus, LAx- lateral view of axis, LEs- lateral view of scapula, LIP- lateral view of pelvis, LUl- lateral view of ulna, LVI- lateral view of sixth cervical vertebra, LM- lateral view of mandible, PFe- caudal view of the proximal extreme of femurSupplementary_data_2Supplementary Data 2. List of landmark configurations including number of landmarks (first column) and its description (second column) for each view analyzed. Semi-landmarks in axis and sixth cervical are indicated with an asterisk.Supplementary_data_3Supplementary Data 3. Description of the standardization procedure followed to simultaneously analyze several landmark configurations. A discussion about the different possible approaches to standardized landmark data is also included.Supplementary_data 4Supplementary Data 4. Topology and taxonomic groups used as reference for evaluation of the effect of the inclusion of an increasing number of landmark configurations. The backbone topology was derived from Sato et al. (2013). The phylogenetic relationships within procyonids are based on Koepfli et al. (1997). The phylogenetic relationships within mustelids were derived from Sato et al. (2013) with a complementary use of Koepfli & Wayne (1998) and Koepfli et al. (2008).Supplementary Data 5Supplementary Data 5. Trees where data shown in Table 2 is based on.Supplementary_data_5.zipSupplementary_data_6Supplementary Data 6. Complementary analyses conducted in order to evaluate if different methodological decisions made during the analyses (method of superimposition, standardization procedure, presence of missing data, phylogeny used as reference) affect the main conclusions obtained in the present study.Supplementary Data 7Supplementary Data 7. Dataset and best tree obtained considering the 9 configurations. The script used to run the analysis in TNT (land_searches.run) is also included.