Phylogeny of Holothuroidea (Echinodermata) inferred from ...

74 A. M. KERR and J. KIM
Figure 2. Most parsimonious trees for analyses of all taxa, weighting and rooting procedures. A, 50% majority rule
consensus tree of 24 trees using equal weights plus ancestor rooting. B, 50% majority rule consensus tree of two most
parsimonious trees for successive weights and ancestor rooting. C, 50% majority rule consensus tree of eight trees
under equal and under successive weights, using the Palaeocucumaria outgroup each time. Asterisked node indicate
unresolved node in equally weighted analyses. D, 50% majority rule consensus tree of two most parsimonious trees
using succesive weights and mid-point rooting; collapsing at the asterisked nodes generates the 50% majority rule
consensus tree of 16 most parsimonious trees using equal weights and mid-point rooting. Arrows indicate possible
positions of long-branch roots. Numbers above branches indicates bootstrap percentages separated by slashes are for
equal and for successive weighted analyses; percentages less than 50% are not shown.
(data not shown). When Eupyrgidae and Ge- fewer most parsimonious trees (Table 3) when the
phyrothuriidae were excluded, all rooting-by-weighting
two derived families were excluded. Exclusion also
schemes produced an identical strict consensus resulted in placement of the long-branch root on the
of shortest trees (Fig. 3), except for a trichotomy in longest branch (with 11 unambiguous changes), which
the elasipodans (Fig. 3A). In addition, the equally split the apodan clade and the remaining taxa.
weighted data, regardless of rooting method, produced Finally, pruning the two families resulted in small