In: Biology
Explaining with examples
1.Assume the size that communities assembled from many phylogenetic lineages show large functional diversity if assembly is random, but low functional diversity if assembly is controlled by interactions between species within lineages. We combined less than 9000 varities of Dutch plant communities, a species‐level phylogeny, and information on 16 functional traits (including eight dispersal traits). We found that all traits were conserved within lineages, but nevertheless communities assembled from many lineages showed a smaller variation in trait‐states of most traits (including dispersal traits) than communities assembled from few lineages. Hence, within lineages, species are not randomly assembled into communities, contradicting Neutral Theory. In fact, we find evidence for evolutionary divergence in trait‐states as well as present‐day mutual exclusion among related, similar species, suggesting that functional diversity of communities increased due to past and present interactions between species within lineages.
2.First of all more you've got homoplasy more parsimony is problematic. It means (in my mind of course) that parsimony is working well as soon as you've got a moderate rate of mutations. A way to partially solve it is to use a Goloboff correction....but it is not optimal
As you know mitochondrial genes are clearly biased for AT especially in "our" insects.
Anyway, when it is possible, I prefer to compare parsimony, phenetic and maxlik trees and discuss the 3 approaches rather than using a single method.
I had many problems with MrBayes......Bayesian statistics are extremely powerful for many things...but I'm not fan for phylogenetic analysis.
To summarize, flaws exist for all the available methods, we've got just to accept that and staying cautious in our conclusions !!!