A general method for tree-comparison based on subtree similarity and its use in a taxonomic database

BioSystems

Volumn 42, Issue 1, 1997, Pages 1-8

  Zhong, Yang ^a,c   Meacham, Christopher A ^b   Pramanik, Sakti ^a  

^a Michigan State University   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c Wuhan Institute of Botany Chinese Academy of Sciences   (China)

Author keywords

Classification tree; Dendrogram; Overall similarity; Taxonomic database; Tree comparison

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; CLASSIFICATION; DATA BASE; EVOLUTION; METHODOLOGY; TAXONOMY;

EID: 0030943184     PISSN: 03032647     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0303-2647(97)01684-5     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Blake, J.A., Bult, C.J., Donoghue, M.J., Humphries, J and Fields, C. 1994. Interoperability of biological data bases: a meeting report. Syst. Biol. 43, 585-589.
2. Day, W.H.E., 1985, Optimal algorithms for comparing trees with labeled leaves. J. Classif. 2, 7-28.
3. Estabrook, G.F., F.R. McMorris and C.A. Meacham. 1985, Comparison of undirected phylogenetic trees based on subtrees of four evolutionary units. Syst. Zool. 34, 193-200.
4. Goddard, W., Kubicka, E., Kubicki, G. and McMorris, F.R., 1994, The agreement metric for labeled binary trees. Math. Biosci. 123, 215-226.
5. Hamann, 1961. Merkmalbestand und Verwandtschafts-beziehungen der Farinosae. Ein Beitragzun System der Monokotyledonen. Willdenowia, 2, 639-768.
6. Jung, S., Parkins, S., Zhong, Y., Pramanik, S. and Beaman, J.H., 1995, A new data model for biological classification. CABIOS, 11 (3), 237-246.
7. Kluge, A.G. and Farris, J.S., 1969, Quantitative phyletics and evolution of anurans. Syst. Zool. 18, 1-32.
8. Penny, D. and Hendy, M.D., 1985, The use of tree comparison metrics. Syst. Zool. 34, 75-82.
9. Queiroz, K. de and Gauthier, J., 1992, Phylogenetic taxonomy. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 23, 449-480.
10. Sanderson, M.J., Baldwin, B.G., Bharathan, G. et al., 1993, The growth of phylogenetic information and the need for a phylogenetic data base. Syst. Biol. 42, 562-568.
11. Smith, T.F. and Waterman, M.S., 1980, How alike are two trees? Am. Math. Mon. 87, 552-553.
12. Sokal, R.R. and Michener, C.D. 1958, A statistical method for evaluating systematic relationships. Univ. Kans. Sci. Bull. 38, 1409-1438.
13. Steel, M. and Penny, D., 1993, Distributions of tree comparison metrics - some new results. Syst. Biol. 42, 126-141.
14. Swofford, D.L., 1991a, PAUP: Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony, version 3.0 (Illinois Natural History Survey, Champaign, IL).
15. Swofford, D.L., 1991b, When are phylogeny estimates from molecular and morphological data incongruent?, in: Phylogenetic Analysis of DNA Sequences, M.M. Miyamoto and J. Cracraft (eds.) (Oxford University Press, New York) pp. 295-333.
16. Williams, W.T. and Clifford, H.T., 1971. On the comparison of two classifications of the same set of elements. Taxon 20, 519-522.
17. Zhong, Y., Li, W. and Huang, D.S., 1994, The Theories and Methods of Cladistics (Science Press, Beijing).
18. Zhong, Y., Jung, S., Pramanik, S. and Beaman, J.H., 1996, Data model and comparison and query methods for interacting classifications in a taxonomic database. Taxon 45, 223-241.