Detrended correspondence analysis in the ordination of data for phenetics and cladistics

Taxon

Volumn 45, Issue 1, 1996, Pages 71-84

  Parnell, J ^a   Waldren, S ^a  

^a TRINITY COLLEGE DUBLIN   (Ireland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0030019325     PISSN: 00400262     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2307/1222587     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Bateman, R. M., DiMichele, W. A. & Willard, D. A. 1992. Experimental cladistic analysis of anatomically preserved aborescent lycopsids from the Carboniferous of Euramerica: an essay on paleobotanical phylogenetics. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 79: 500-559.
2. Braak, C. J. F. ter, 1988. CANOCO - a fortran program for canonical community ordination by partial detrended canonical correspondence analysis, principal components analysis and redundancy analysis, version 2.1. Wageningen.
3. Briggs, D. E. G., Fortey, R. A. & Wills, M. A. 1992. Morphological disparity in the Cambrian. Science 256: 1670-1673.
4. Causton, D. G. 1988. Introduction to vegetation analysis. London.
5. Dempster, A. P. 1969. Elements of multivariate analysis. Massachusetts.
6. Foote, M. 1992. Rarefaction analysis of morphological and taxonomic diversity. Paleobiology 18: 1-16.
7. Frontier, S. 1976. Etude de la décroissance des valeurs propres dans une analyse en composantes principales: comparison avec le modèle du bâton brisé. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. 25: 67-75.
8. Gower, J. C. 1966. Some distance properties of latent root and vector methods used in multivariate analysis. Biometrica 53: 325-338.
9. Hill, M. O. 1973. Reciprocal averaging: an eigenvector method of ordination. J. Ecol. 61: 237-250.
10. - 1974. Correspondence analysis: a neglected multivariate method. J. Roy. Statist. Soc., C, 23: 350-354.
11. - 1979. DECORANA - A fortran program for detrended correspondence analysis. New York.
12. - & Gauch, H. G. 1980. Detrended correspondence analysis: an improved ordination technique. Vegetatio 42: 47-58.
13. - & Smith, A. J. E. 1976. Principal components analysis of taxonomic data with multi-state discrete characters. Taxon 25: 249-255.
14. Jablonski, D. 1995. Extinctions in the fossil record. Pp. 25-44 in: Lawton, J. H. & May, R. M. (ed.), Extinction rates. London.
15. Jackson, D. A. 1993. Stopping rules in principal components analysis: a comparison of heuristical and statistical approaches. Ecology 74: 2204-2214.
16. Kent, M. & Coker, P. 1992. Vegetation description and analysis. A practical approach. Boca Raton.
17. Manly, B. F. J. 1986. Multivariate statistical methods: a primer. London.
18. Marsden-Jones, E. M. 1930. The genetics of Geum intermedium Willd. haud Ehrh., and its backcrosses. J. Genet. 23: 377-395.
19. Meacham, C. A. 1980. Phylogeny of the Berberidaceae with an evaluation of classifications. Syst. Bot. 5: 149-172.
20. Palmer, M. W. 1993. Putting things in even better order: the advantages of canonical correspondence analysis. Ecology 74: 2215-2230.
21. Parnell, J. 1987. Variation in Jasione montana L. (Campanulaceae) and related species in Europe and North Africa. Watsonia 16: 249-267.
22. Podani, J. 1990. Syn-tax IV. Computer programs for data analysis in ecology and systematics on IBM-PC and Macintosh computers. Trieste.
23. Quicke, D. L. J. 1993. Principles and techniques of contemporary taxonomy. London.
24. Stuessy, T. F. 1983. Phylogenetic trees in plant systematics. Sida 10: 1-13.
25. - 1990. Plant taxonomy. New York.
26. Swofford, D. L. 1993. PAUP: phylogenetic analysis using parsimony, version 3.1. Champaign.
27. Waldren, S., Etherington, J. R. & Davies, M. S. 1989. Hybridization and ecology of Geum rivale L. and Geum urbanum L. (Rosaceae) at Malham Tarn, Yorkshire. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 101: 199-211.
28. Wilson, P. 1992. On inferring hybridity from morphological intermediacy. Taxon 41: 11-23.
29. Wills, M. A., Briggs, D. E. G. & Fortey, R. A. 1994. Disparity as an evolutionary index: a comparison of Cambrian and recent arthropods. Paleobiology 20: 93-130.