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
anatomy1. 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.