The Problem with Traditional Evolutionary Trees
For over a century, scientists have classified organisms based on their physical traits, assuming that similarities in structure indicated a close evolutionary relationship. However, research led by the Milner Centre for Evolution at the University of Bath suggests that this method may be misleading.
The Morphology vs. Molecular Data Debate
Since the 19th century, biologists have relied on anatomical features to build evolutionary trees. However, with the advent of genetic sequencing, researchers can now construct molecular phylogenies—evolutionary trees based on DNA rather than physical traits. This study, published in Communications Biology, is the first to systematically compare these two methods while considering the geographical distribution of species.
Lab Quality Management Certificate
The Lab Quality Management certificate is more than training—it’s a professional advantage.
Gain critical skills and IACET-approved CEUs that make a measurable difference.
Key Findings from the Study
Scientists compared evolutionary trees based on:
- Morphology (anatomy and physical traits)
- Molecular data (genetic sequences)
They then mapped these trees according to the geographical location of the species. The results were striking:
- Molecular trees align more closely with geographical distribution – Species grouped together based on DNA are more likely to live near one another, while those classified by morphology are often found in widely separated regions.
- Convergent evolution is far more common than previously believed – Traits that appear similar in different species often evolved independently rather than being inherited from a common ancestor.
Why Does This Matter?
The Role of Biogeography in Evolution
Professor Matthew Wills, an evolutionary paleobiologist at the University of Bath, explained:
"It turns out that we’ve got lots of our evolutionary trees wrong. For over a hundred years, we’ve been classifying organisms according to how they look and are put together anatomically, but molecular data often tells us a rather different story."
A key example of this is the group Afrotheria, which includes seemingly unrelated mammals like:
- Elephants
- Aardvarks
- Golden moles
- Elephant shrews
- Manatees
Despite their vastly different appearances and lifestyles, DNA analysis shows they share a common African ancestor. This pattern suggests that biogeography—where species are found—can be a better indicator of evolutionary history than morphology alone.
Convergent Evolution: A Repeating Pattern
Wills highlighted how convergent evolution has led to major classification errors:
"We already have lots of famous examples, such as flight evolving separately in birds, bats, and insects, or complex camera eyes evolving in squid and humans. But now, with molecular data, we see that convergent evolution happens all the time—things we thought were closely related often turn out to be far apart on the tree of life."
The study confirms that nature frequently "reinvents" similar biological features in unrelated species, misleading scientists who rely on physical traits alone.
Implications for Evolutionary Biology
How Should Scientists Classify Species?
Dr. Jack Oyston, research associate and first author of the paper, emphasized the importance of molecular data:
"The idea that biogeography can reflect evolutionary history was a large part of what prompted Darwin to develop his theory of evolution through natural selection. It's pretty surprising that it hadn't really been considered directly as a way of testing the accuracy of evolutionary trees before now."
This research suggests that:
- Molecular data should take precedence over morphology when determining evolutionary relationships.
- Scientists should re-evaluate existing classifications, particularly in groups where convergent evolution is common.
- Biogeography should be more widely used as an independent test of evolutionary trees.
Final Thoughts
This study has profound implications for evolutionary biology. By relying more on genetic data and considering biogeography, scientists can build more accurate evolutionary trees, correcting over a century of misconceptions. As molecular sequencing technology advances, future research may reveal even more surprising relationships between species, further reshaping our understanding of evolution.
