Eric Wilberg

Captive broad snouted crocodylians are generally thought to have wider, shorter rostra than their wild counterparts. Interpreted to reflect morphological change in response to the conditions of captivity, this qualitative pattern could affect the utility of these animals in a variety of fields of research. However, due to relative ease of access and availability of life history data, captive animals are often utilized in actualistic research. Thus, this issue should be addressed in more detail. Here we explore snout shape variation between captive and wild members of Alligator mississippiensis using two-dimensional (2D) morphometric techniques. Several landmark schemesare used to assess the utility of different aspects of morphology in distinguishing the groups. While statistical analyses consistently differentiated between the groups, the area of morphospace occupied by wild members of A. mississippiensis generally overlapped with the larger area encompassing the captive specimens. This indicates that the captive condition is not as uniform as previously thought and instead encompasses a large spectrum of morphologies, ranging from the stereotypical broad, shortened snouts to outlines that are indistinguishable from the wild morphotype. These results align well with the interpretation that this change reflects an extreme example of ecophenotypy, since ranched, farmed, or zoo organisms are held in an array of enclosures, ranging from indoor, climate controlled pens to outdoor, more natural areas. This variation in environments should be reflected in different reactions to the animals' surroundings, resulting in a broad spectrum of morphotypes. While wild specimens are still preferred, especially for fine scale analyses, these results indicate that not all captive members of A. mississippiensis exhibit the extreme morphological alterations often cited in the literature. Weighing the conditions in which the animals are held and exploring the possibility of morphological differences against the benefits of using captive specimens should be part of any actualistic study.

Model-based approaches (e.g. maximum likelihood, Bayesian inference) are widely used with molecular data, where they might be more appropriate than maximum parsimony for estimating phylogenies under various models of molecular evolution. Recently, there has been an increase in the application of model-based approaches with morphological (mainly fossil) data; however, there is some doubt as to the effectiveness of the model of morphological evolution. The input parameters (prior probabilities) for the model are unclear, particularly when concerned with unobserved character states. Despite this, some systematists are suggesting superiority of these model-based methods over maximum parsimony based on, for example, increased resolution or, in the current study, the preferred phylogenetic placement of an iconic taxon. Here, we revisit a recently published analysis implying such superiority and document the discrepancies between parsimony-based and model-based approaches to phylogeny estimation. We find that although some taxa are shifted back to their “traditional” phylogenetic placement, other clades are disturbed. The model-based phylogenies are better resolved; however, due to the lack of an appropriate model of morphological evolution, the increase in resolving power is probably not meaningful. Similarly, some of the preferred phylogenetic positions of taxa, particularly of labile taxa such as Archaeopteryx, are based solely on analyses employing maximum parsimony as the optimality criterion. Poor resolution and labile taxa indicate a need for further examination of the morphology and not a change in method.