Abstract
Recently, many studies have addressed the performance of phylogenetic tree-building methods (maximum parsimony, maximum likelihood, and Bayesian inference), focusing primarily on simulated data. However, for discrete morphological data, there is no consensus yet on which methods recover the phylogeny with better performance. To address this lack of consensus, we investigate the performance of different methods using an empirical dataset for hexapods as a model. As an empirical test of performance, we applied normalized indices to effectively measure accuracy (normalized Robinson-Foulds metric, nRF) and precision, which are measured via resolution, one minus Colless' consensus fork index (1-CFI). Additionally, to further explore phylogenetic accuracy and support measures, we calculated other statistics, such as the true positive rate (statistical power) and the false positive rate (type I error), and constructed receiver operating characteristic plots to visualize the relationship between these statistics. We applied the normalized indices to the reconstructed trees from the reanalyses of an empirical discrete morphological dataset from extant Hexapoda using a well-supported phylogenomic tree as a reference. Maximum likelihood and Bayesian inference applying the k-state Markov (Mk) model (without or with a discrete gamma distribution) performed better, showing higher precision (resolution). Additionally, our results suggest that most available tree topology tests are reliable estimators of the performance measures applied in this study. Thus, we suggest that likelihood-based methods and tree topology tests should be used more often in phylogenetic tree studies based on discrete morphological characters. Our study provides a fair indication that morphological datasets have robust phylogenetic signal.