Phylogenies based on morphology vary considerably in their quality: some are robust and explicit with little conflict in the data set, whereas others are far more tenuous, with much conflict and many possible alternatives. The main primary reasons for untrue or inexplicit morphological phylogenies are: not enough characters developed between branching points, uncertain character polarity, poorly differentiated character states, homoplasy caused by parallelism or reversal, and extinction, which may remove species entirely from consideration and can make originally conflicting data sets misleadingly compatible, increasing congruence at the expense of truth. Extinction differs from other confounding factors in not being apparent either in the data set or in subsequent analysis. One possibility is that variation in the quality of morphological phylogenies has resulted from exposure to different ecological situations. To investigate this, it is necessary to compare the histories of the clades concerned. In the case of explicit morphological phylogenies, ecological and behavioural data can be integrated with them and it may then be possible to decide whether morphological characters are likely to have been elicited by the environments through which the clade has passed. The credibility of such results depends not only on the phylogeny being robust but also on its detailed topology: a pectinate phylogeny will often allow more certain and more explicit statements to be made about historical events. In the case of poor phylogenies, it is not possible to produce detailed histories, but they can be compared with robust phylogenies in the range of ecological situations occupied, and whether they occupy novel situations in comparison with their outgroups. LeQuesne testing can give information about niche homoplasy, and it may also be possible to see if morphological features are functionally associated with ecological parameters, even if the direction of change is unknown. Examination of the robust and explicit phylogeny of the semaphore geckoes (Pristurus) suggests that its quality does stem from a variety of environmental factors. The group has progressed along an ecological continuum, passing through a series of increasingly severe niches that appear to have elicited many morphological changes. The fact that niches are progressively filled reduces the likelihood of species reinvading a previous one with related character reversal. Because the niches of advanced Pristurus are virtually unique within the Gekkonidae the morphological changes produced are also very rare and therefore easy to polarize. Ecological changes on the main stem of the phylogeny are abrupt and associated character states consequently well differentiated.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

中文翻译：

---

为什么形态系统发育在质量上有所不同？基于蜥蜴进化枝比较史的调查。

基于形态的系统发育的质量差异很大：某些系统健壮且明确，在数据集中几乎没有冲突，而其他系统则脆弱得多，冲突很多，并且有许多可能的选择。形态系统发育不正确或不明确的主要原因，主要是：分支点之间发育的字符不足，字符极性不确定，字符状态差，由平行性或逆转引起的同质性以及灭绝，这可能使物种完全脱离考虑并可以最初形成相互冲突的数据集会产生误导性的兼容性，从而增加一致性，但会损害事实。灭绝与其他混杂因素不同，在数据集或后续分析中都不明显。一种可能性是形态系统发育质量的变化是由于暴露于不同的生态环境而引起的。为了对此进行调查，有必要比较有关进化枝的历史。在明确的形态系统发生的情况下，可以将生态和行为数据与它们整合在一起，然后可以决定进化枝所穿过的环境是否可能引起了形态特征。这种结果的可信度不仅取决于系统发育的鲁棒性，还取决于其详细的拓扑结构：果胶状系统发育通常将允许对历史事件做出更确定和更明确的陈述。如果系统发育不良，则不可能产生详细的历史记录，但可以将它们与所占据的生态环境范围内的健壮系统发育相比较，以及与外部群体相比是否具有新颖的环境。LeQuesne测试可以提供有关生态位同质性的信息，而且即使变化方向未知，也有可能查看形态特征是否与生态参数在功能上相关。对信号灯壁虎（Pristurus）强大而明确的系统发育的研究表明，其质量确实来自多种环境因素。该小组沿着一个生态连续体前进，经历了一系列日益严重的生态位，这些生态位似乎引起了许多形态上的变化。生态位被逐渐填充的事实降低了物种入侵具有相关性状反转的先前物种的可能性。由于高级腕龙的壁ni在壁虎科中实际上是独特的，因此所产生的形态变化也非常罕见，因此容易被极化。系统发育的主要词干上的生态变化突然发生，因此相关的特征状态得到了很好的区分。（摘要截断为400字）