On consensus, confidence, and "total evidence"

Cladistics

Volumn 12, Issue 1, 1996, Pages 83-92

  Page, Roderic D M ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0002506482     PISSN: 07483007     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1006/clad.1996.0006     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. ADAMS, E. N. 1986. N-trees as nestings: Complexity, similarity, and consensus. J. Classif. 3: 299-317.
2. ÁRNASON, Ú. AND E. JOHNSSON. 1992. The complete mitochondrial DNA sequence of the harbor seal, Phoca vitulina. J. Mol. Evol. 34: 493-505.
3. BARRETT, M., M. J. DONOGHUE, ANDE. SOBER. 1991. Against consensus. Syst. Zool.40: 486-493.
4. BARTHÉLEMY, J. -P. AND F. R. MCMORRIS. 1986. The median procedure for n-trees. J. Classif. 3: 329-334.
5. BAUM, B. R. 1992. Combining trees as a way of combining data sets for phylogenetic inference, and the desirability of combining gene trees. Taxon 41: 3-10.
6. BROOKS, D. R. AND D. A. MCLENNAN. 1991. Phylogeny, Ecology, and Behavior. Chicago University Press, Chicago.
7. BULL, J. J., J. P. HUELSENBECK, C. W. CUNNINGHAM, D. L. SWOFFORD, AND P. J. WADDELL. 1993. Partitioning and combining data in phylogenetic analysis. Syst. Biol. 42: 384-397.
8. DE QUEIROZ, A. 1993. For consensus (sometimes). Syst. Biol. 42: 368-372.
9. DOYLE, J. J. 1992. Gene trees and species trees: Molecular systematics as one-character taxonomy. Syst. Bot. 17: 144-163.
10. FELSENSTEIN, J. 1985. Confidence limits on phylogenies: An approach using the bootstrap. Evolution 39: 783-791.
11. GOODMAN, M., D. A. TAGLE, D. H. A. FITCH, W. J. BAILEY, J. CZELUSNIAK, B. F. KOOP, P. BENSON, AND J. L. SLIGHTOM, 1990. Primate evolution at the DNA level and a classification of the hominoids. J. Mol. Evol. 30: 260-266.
12. HILLIS, D. M. 1995. Approaches for assessing phylogenetic accuracy. Syst. Biol. 44: 3-16.
13. KLUGE, A. G. 1989. A concern for evidence and phylogenetic hypothesis of relationship among Epicrates (Boidae, Serpentes). Syst. Zool. 38: 7-25.
14. KLUGE, A. G. AND A. J. WOLF. 1993. Cladistics: What's in a word? Cladistics 9: 183-199.
15. MCMORRIS, F. R. AND D. NEUMANN. 1983. Consensus functions defined on trees. Math. Social Sci. 4: 131-136.
16. MCMORRIS, F. R. AND M. A. STEEL. (In press) The complexity of the median procedure for binary trees. In: Proceedings of the 4th Conference of the International Federation of Classification Societies. Studies in Classification, Data Analysis, and Knowledge Organization. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
17. MICKEVICH, M. F. AND C. MITTER. 1981. Treating polymorphic characters in systematics. In: Funk, V. A. and D. R. Brooks (eds). Advances in cladistics: Proceedings of the first meeting of the Willi Hennig Society. New York Botanical Garden, New York, pp. 45-60.
18. MIYAMOTO, M. M. AND W. M. FITCH. 1995. Testing species phylogenies and phylogenetic methods with congruence. Syst. Biol. 44: 64-76.
19. NELSON, G. AND N. I. PLATNICK. 1981. Systematics and biogeography: Cladistics and vicariance. Columbia University Press, New York.
20. PAGE, R. D. M. 1988. Quantitative cladistic biogeography: Constructing and comparing area cladograms. Syst. Zool. 37: 254-270.
21. PAGE, R. D. M. 1989. Comments on components-compatibility in historical biogeography. Cladistics 5: 167-182.
22. PAGE, R. D. M. 1993a. COMPONENT. Ver. 2.0. The Natural History Museum, London.
23. PAGE, R. D. M. 1993b. Genes, organisms, and areas: the problem of multiple lineages. Syst. Biol. 42: 77-84.
24. PAGE, R. D. M. 1994. Maps between trees and cladistic analysis of historical associations among genes, organisms, and areas. Syst. Biol. 43: 58-77.
25. PATTERSON, C., D. M. WILLIAMS AND C. J. HUMPHRIES. 1993. Congruence between molecular and morphological phylogenies. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 24: 153-188.
26. PATTON, J. L. AND M. F. SMITH. 1994. Paraphyly, polyphyly, and the nature of species boundaries in pocket gophers (genus Thomomys). Syst. Biol. 43: 11-26.
27. PENNY, D. AND M. D. HENDY. 1985. The use of tree comparison metrics. Syst. Zool. 34: 75-82.
28. RODRIGO, A. G., M. KELLY-BORGES, P. R. BERQUIST, AND P. L. BERQUIST. 1993. A randomisation test of the null hypothesis that two cladograms are sample estimates of a parametric phylogenetic tree. N. Z. J. Bot. 31: 257-268.
29. SANDERSON, M. J. 1989. Confidence limits on phylogenies: The bootstrap revisited. Cladistics 5: 113-129.
30. STEEL, M. A. AND D. PENNY. 1993. Distributions of tree comparison metrics - some new results. Syst. Biol. 42: 126-141.
31. SWOFFORD, D. L. 1990. PAUP - Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony. Ver. 3.0. Illinois Natural History Survey, Champaign, Illinois.
32. SWOFFORD, D. L. 1991. When are phylogeny estimates from molecular and morphological data incongruent? In: Miyamoto, M. M. and J. Cracraft (eds). Phylogenetic analysis of DNA sequences. Oxford University Press, New York. pp. 295-333.
33. SWOFFORD, D. L. AND S. H. BERLOCHER. 1987. Inferring evolutionary trees from gene frequency data under the principle of maximum parsimony. Syst. Zool. 36: 293-325.