Results

Figure 1 represents the cladogram which was created relying on anatomical features
observed during dissection. The closely related species were the mudpuppy and
perch as they shared the most anatomical features (Figure 1). The cladogram
features the sea anemone and starfish as the outgroup species. Figure 2 and 3 are
phylogenetic trees each comparing Cytochrome B and Actin protein sequences,
respectively. Using PHYLIP the phylogenetic trees visualize the evolutionary
relationship between the species based on amino acid sequences. The phylogenetic
tree for Cytochrome shows the squid as the outgroup while the phylogenetic tree for
Actin shows the starfish as the outgroup. In Figure 2 the dogfish shark and mottled
skate are closely related, and in Figure 3 the chain catshark and lamprey are closely
related.

Figure 1. Cladogram featuring six physical criteria in order to infer evolutionary

relationships between nine aquatic organisms.
Figure 2. Phylogenetic tree visualizing evolutionary relationships between nine
aquatic organisms in regards to the protein Cytochrome B using PHYLIP, bootstrap
values are also shown.

Figure 3. Phylogenetic tree visualizing evolutionary relationships between nine

aquatic organisms in regards to the protein Actin using PHYLIP, bootstrap values are
also shown.
 Discussion
There are various methods of constructing phylogenies from anatomical traits to
biological sequence differences. Overall, phylogenies hypothesize the relationships
between organisms similarities and differences in regards to their physical or
genetic characteristics.
In Figure 1 the mudpuppy, perch, dogfish shark, and squid shared the most
anatomical features based on the chosen criteria. So it was hypothesized their
protein sequences would be fairly similar providing further evidence that these
organisms had closer evolutionary relationship in regards to the other species.
However, once the phylogenetic tree was produced based on the actin protein
sequence, the evidence failed to support the hypothesis (Figure 3). In Figure 3, the
squid is shown as the outgroup which was surprisingly in contrast to the cladogram
produced from anatomical features
Figure 1 represents a cladogram that is based on anatomical features. This tree was
primarily based on interpretation of the homology of various physical features
between the aquatic organisms. This can be used to deduce evolutionary
relationships. However it is not enough, as there is no way to account for analogous
structures and homoplastic structures1. It is important to also analyze biological
sequence data in order to further support key evolutionary relationships derived
from the anatomical features.
As seen in Figures 2 and 3, the phylogenetic trees looks very distinctive from the
cladogram based on simply physical features. A primary difference is the bootstrap
values that assess the reliability of branches2. This allows confidence in supporting
arguments in regards to relatedness, however it can also show controversial
relatedness as well. Inferring close evolutionary relationships between organisms
based on physical features neglects the possibility that the organism do not share a
common ancestor but have similar anatomical features due to a similar
environment, requiring a similar function in anatomy 1. Biological sequence data can
most likely eliminate these incorrect inferences by providing hard evidence that
suggests the organisms are indeed genetically related and do share a more recent
common ancestor.
Overall, the biological sequence phylogenies seem to have more weight to them in
terms of scientific evidence thus more providing confidence in the data. Inferring
evolutionary relationships based on simply anatomy is open to interpretation and
quite subjective. It may be a great idea to start off with anatomical features as a
sketch model but then support it with a biological based phylogenetic tree using
DNA or protein sequences. Many biologists rely upon phylogenetic data in order to
reveal patterns of evolution that give us great insight to the world in terms of past,
present, and future3.
 A follow up experiment would be to use DNA sequences in order to further compare
the nine aquatic organisms. We hypothesize the DNA sequence phylogenetic tree
would be the most accurate in representing the evolutionary relationships between
the organisms.

References

1. Felsenstein, J., & Felenstein, J. (2004). Inferring phylogenies (Vol. 2).

Sunderland: Sinauer associates.

2. Felsenstein, J., 1985. Confidence limits on phylogenies: an approach using the

bootstrap. Evolution, pp.783-791.

3. Soltis, Douglas E., and Pamela S. Soltis. The Role of Phylogenetics in

Comparative Genetics. Plant Physiology 132.4 (2003): 17901800.