TY - JOUR
T1 - Model selection, hummingbird natural history, and biological hypotheses
T2 - a response to Sazatornil et al
AU - Kriebel, Ricardo
AU - Rose, Jeffrey P.
AU - Drew, Bryan T.
AU - González-Gallegos, Jesús G.
AU - Celep, Ferhat
AU - Heeg, Luciann
AU - Mahdjoub, Mohamed M.
AU - Sytsma, Kenneth J.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Society for the Study of Evolution (SSE). All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.
PY - 2023/2/4
Y1 - 2023/2/4
N2 - We have previously suggested that a shift from bee to hummingbird pollination, in concert with floral architecture modifications, occurred at the crown of Salvia subgenus Calosphace in North America ca. 20 mya (Kriebel et al. 2020 and references therein). Sazatornil et al. (2022), using a hidden states model, challenged these assertions, arguing that bees were the ancestral pollinator of subg. Calosphace and claiming that hummingbirds could not have been the ancestral pollinator of subg. Calosphace because hummingbirds were not contemporaneous with crown subg. Calosphace in North America. Here, using a variety of models, we demonstrate that most analyses support hummingbirds as ancestral pollinators of subg. Calosphace and show that Sazatornil et al. (2022) erroneously concluded that hummingbirds were absent from North America ca. 20 mya. We contend that "biological realism" - based on timing and placement of hummingbirds in Mexico ca. 20 mya and the correlative evolution of hummingbird associated floral traits - must be considered when comparing models based on fit and complexity, including hidden states models.
AB - We have previously suggested that a shift from bee to hummingbird pollination, in concert with floral architecture modifications, occurred at the crown of Salvia subgenus Calosphace in North America ca. 20 mya (Kriebel et al. 2020 and references therein). Sazatornil et al. (2022), using a hidden states model, challenged these assertions, arguing that bees were the ancestral pollinator of subg. Calosphace and claiming that hummingbirds could not have been the ancestral pollinator of subg. Calosphace because hummingbirds were not contemporaneous with crown subg. Calosphace in North America. Here, using a variety of models, we demonstrate that most analyses support hummingbirds as ancestral pollinators of subg. Calosphace and show that Sazatornil et al. (2022) erroneously concluded that hummingbirds were absent from North America ca. 20 mya. We contend that "biological realism" - based on timing and placement of hummingbirds in Mexico ca. 20 mya and the correlative evolution of hummingbird associated floral traits - must be considered when comparing models based on fit and complexity, including hidden states models.
KW - covarion analyses
KW - evolutionary constraint
KW - hidden states analyses
KW - hummingbird pollination
KW - rate heterogeneity
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85147457744&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1093/evolut/qpac023
DO - 10.1093/evolut/qpac023
M3 - Artículo
C2 - 36626811
AN - SCOPUS:85147457744
SN - 0014-3820
VL - 77
SP - 646
EP - 653
JO - Evolution
JF - Evolution
IS - 2
ER -