Phylogenetic interpretation of ontogenetic change: sorting out the actual and artefactual in an empirical case study of centrarchid fishes

Abstract Hypothesized relationships between ontogenetic and phylogenetic change in morphological characters were empirically tested in centrarchid fishes by comparing observed patterns of character development with patterns of character evolution as inferred from a representative phylogenetic hypothesis. This phylogeny was based on 56-61 morphological characters that were polarized by outgroup comparison. Through these comparisons, evolutionary changes in character ontogeny were categorized in one of eight classes (terminal addition, terminal deletion, terminal substitution, non-terminal addition, non-terminal deletion, non-terminal substitution, ontogenetic reversal and substitution). The relative frequencies of each of these classes provided an empirical basis from which assumptions underlying hypothesized relationships between ontogeny and phylogeny were tested. In order to test hypothesized relationships between ontogeny and phylogeny that involve assumptions about the relative frequencies of terminal change (e.g. the use of ontogeny as a homology criterion), two additional phylogenies were generated in which terminal addition and terminal deletion were maximized and minimized for all characters. Character state change interpreted from these phylogenies thus represents the maxima and minima of the frequency range of terminal addition and terminal deletion for the 8.7 × 10 36 trees possible for centrarchids. It was found for these data that terminal change accounts for c. 75% of the character state change. This suggests either that early ontogeny is conserved in evolution or that interpretation and classification of evolutionary changes in ontogeny is biased in part by the way that characters are recognized, delimited and coded. It was found that ontogenetic interpretation is influenced by two levels of homology decision: an initial decision involving delimitation of the character (the ontogenetic sequence), and the subsequent recognition of homologous components of developmental sequences. Recognition of phylogenetic homology among individual components of developmental sequences is necessary for interpretation of evolutionary changes in ontogeny as either terminal or non-terminal. If development is the primary criterion applied in recognizing individual homologies among parts of ontogenetic sequences, the only possible interpretation of phylogenetic differences is that of terminal change. If homologies of the components cannot be ascertained, recognition of the homology of the developmental sequence as a whole will result in the interpretation of evolutionary differences as substitutions. Particularly when the objective of a study is to discover how ontogeny has evolved, criteria in addition to ontogeny must be used to recognize homology. Interpretation is also dependent upon delimitation within an ontogenetic sequence. This is in part a function of the way that an investigator 'sees' and codes characters. Binary and multistate characters influence interpretation differently and predictably. The use of ontogeny for determining phylogenetic polarity as previously proposed rests on the assumptions that ancestral ontogenies are conserved and that character evolution occurs predominantly through terminal addition. It was found for these data that terminal addition may comprise a maximum of 51.9% of the total character state change. It is concluded that the ontogenetic criterion is not a reliable indicator of phylogenetic polarity. Process and pattern data are collected simultaneously by those engaged in comparative morphological studies of development. The set of alternative explanatory processes is limited in the process of observing development. These form necessary starting points for the research of developmental biologists. Separating 'empirical' results from interpretational influences requires awareness of potential biases in the course of character selection, coding and interpretation. Consideration of the interpretational problems involved in identifying and classifying phylogenetic changes in ontogeny leads to a re-evaluation of the purpose, usefulness and information conveyed by the current classification system. It is recommended that alternative classification schemes be pursued.