Tales of Tools and Trees: Phylogenetic analysis and explanation in evolutionary archaeology

In this paper, I study the application of phylogenetic analysis in evolutionary archaeology. I show how transfer of this apparently general analytic tool is affected by salient differences in disciplinary context. One is that archaeologists, unlike many biologists, do not regard cladistics as a tool for classification, but are primarily interested in explanation. The other is that explanation is traditionally sought in terms of individual-level rather than population-level mechanisms. The latter disciplinary difference creates an ambiguity in the application and interpretation of phylogenetic analyses. Moreover, I argue that, while archaeologists have claimed that “cladistics is useful for reconstructing artefact phylogenies” (O’Brien et al. 2001), these reconstructions only contribute minimally to the explanatory research agenda of evolutionary archaeology

Molecular phylogeny and taxonomic synopsis of the angraecoid genus Ypsilopus (Orchidaceae, Vandeae)

Previous phylogenetic analyses focused on angraecoid orchids suggested that the genus Ypsilopus was paraphyletic and that some species of Tridactyle and Rangaeris belong to a clade that included Ypsilopus. These studies, based on three to four genes, sampled few taxa in each genus, and did not include the type of Rangaeris, nor did they take morphological variation into account. To delineate Ypsilopus more precisely, we reconstructed phylogenetic relationships of the genus and seven other closely related genera by analysing sequence variation at the nuclear ribosomal internal transcribed spacer (ITS‐1) and at five plastid markers (matK, rps16, trnC‐petN intergenic spacer, trnL‐trnF intergenic spacer, ycf1), from 42 specimens representing 36 taxa. Trees based on maximum likelihood and Bayesian inference confirm that two species of Tridactyle are nested with three Ypsilopus species, including the type of the latter, and two species of Rangaeris are grouped with this clade. Moreover, we examined morphological variation among all species belonging to these three genera, highlighting morphological features that characterize Ypsilopus, and we used these data to assign the two species of Tridactyle included in the molecular analyses, three other species of Tridactyle not included in the molecular analyses and two species of Rangaeris to Ypsilopus. New combinations for Tridactyle citrina, T. furcistipes, T. sarcodantha, T. tanneri, T. tricuspis, Rangaeris amaniensis and R. schliebenii in Ypsilopus are thus proposed, and one new section (i.e., Ypsilopus sect. Barombiella) is described. Keys to the species of Ypsilopus and closely related genera are provided, along with a table of characters that can be used to differentiate these species