Consistency, Characters, and the Likelihood of Correct Phylogenetic Inference

Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution

Volumn 7, Issue 3, 1997, Pages 320-330

  Givnish, T J ^a   Sytsma, K J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DNA;

ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; COMPUTER PROGRAM; COMPUTER SIMULATION; METABOLISM; PHYLOGENY; RESTRICTION MAPPING; STATISTICAL MODEL;

COMPUTER SIMULATION; DNA; LIKELIHOOD FUNCTIONS; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; PHYLOGENY; RESTRICTION MAPPING; SOFTWARE;

EID: 0031154445     PISSN: 10557903     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1006/mpev.1997.0409     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Appels R., Honeycutt R. L. rDNA: Evolution over a billion years. DNA Systematics, Vol. II: Plants. 1986;CRC Press, Boca Raton. p. 81-135.
2. Archie J. W. Homoplasy excess ratios: New indices for measuring levels of homoplasy in phylogenetic systematics and a critique of the consistency index. Syst. Zool. 38:1989a;253-269.
3. Archie J. W. A randomization test for phylogenetic information in systematic data. Syst. Zool. 38:1989b;239-252.
4. Bull J. J., Huelsenbeck J. P., Cunningham C. W., Swofford D. L., Waddell P. J. Partitioning and combining data in phylogenetic analysis. Syst. Biol. 42:1993;384-397.
5. Crisp M. D. Evolution of bird-pollination in some Australian legumes (Fabaceae). Eggleton P., Vane-Wright R. Phylogenetics and Ecology. 1994;281-309 Academic Press, London.
6. de Queiroz A., Wimberger P. H. The usefulness of behavior for phylogeny estimation: Levels of homoplasy in behavioral and morphological characters. Evolution. 47:1993;46-60.
7. Dixon M. T., Hillis D. M. Ribosomal-RNA secondary structure: Compensatory mutations and implications for phylogenetic analysis. Mol. Biol. Evol. 10:1993;256-267.
8. Donoghue M. J. Progress and prospects in reconstructing plant phylogeny. Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard. 81:1994;405-418.
9. Donoghue M. J., Sanderson M. J. The suitability of molecular and morphological evidence in reconstructing plant phylogeny. Soltis P. S., Soltis D. E., Doyle J. J. Molecular Systematics of Plants. 1992;340-368 Chapman & Hall, New York.
10. Donoghue M. J., Sanderson M. J. Complexity and homology in plants. Hall B. K. Homology: The Hierarchical Basis of Comparative Biology. 1994;393-421 Academic Press, San Diego.
11. Donoghue M. J., Olmstead R. G., Smith J. F., Palmer J. D. Phylogenetic relationships of Dipsacales based on rbcL sequences. Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard. 79:1992;333-345.
12. Doyle J. A., Donoghue M. J., Zimmer E. A. Integration of morphological and ribosomal RNA data on the origin of the angiosperms. Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard. 81:1994;419-450.
13. Farris J. S. The retention index and the rescaled consistency index. Cladistics. 5:1989a;417-419.
14. Farris J. S. The retention index and homoplasy excess. Syst. Zool. 38:1989b;406-407.
15. Felsenstein J. Cases in which parsimony or compatibility methods will be positively misleading. Syst. Zool. 27:1978;401-410.
16. Felsenstein J. Confidence limits on phylogenies: an approach using the bootstrap. Evolution. 39:1985;783-791.
17. Givnish T. J., Sytsma K. J. Chloroplast DNA restriction site data yield phylogenies with less homoplasy than analyses based on morphology or DNA sequences. Am. J. Bot. 79:1992.
18. T. J. Givnish, K. J. Systma, 1997, Homoplasy in molecular vs. morphological data: the likelihood of correct phylogenetic inference, Molecular Evolution and Adaptive Radiation, T. J. GivnishK. J. Sytsma, Cambridge University Press, New York.
19. Gottlieb L. D. Toward molecular genetics inClarkia: Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard. 75:1988;1169-1179.
20. Hillis D. M. Approaches for assessing phylogenetic accuracy. Syst. Biol. 44:1995;3-16.
21. Hillis D. M., Huelsenbeck J. P., Cunningham C. W. Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies. Science. 264:1994;671-677.
22. Hixson J. E., Brown W. M. A comparison of the small mitochondrial RNA genes from the mitochondrial DNA of the great apes and humans: Sequence, structure, evolution, and phylogenetic implications. Mol. Biol. Evol. 3:1986;1-18.
23. Huelsenbeck J. P. Tree-length distribution skewness: An indicator of phylogenetic information. Syst. Zool. 40:1991;257-270.
24. J. P. Huelsenbeck, J. J. Bull, A likelihood ratio test to detect conflicting phylogenetic signal, Syst. Biol. 45, 92, 98.
25. Huelsenbeck J. P., Hillis D. M. Success of phylogenetic methods in the four-taxon case. Syst. Biol. 42:1993;247-264.
26. Kluge A. G., Farris J. S. Quantitative phyletics and the evolution of anurans. Syst. Zool. 18:1969;1-32.
27. A. Larson, 1994, The comparison of morphological and molecular data in phylogenetic systematics, Molecular Ecology and Evolution: Approaches and Applications, B. SchierwaterG. P. WagnerR. DeSalle, 371, 390, Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel.
28. Meier R., Kores P., Darwin S. Homoplasy slope ratio: a better measurement of observed homoplasy in cladistic analyses. Syst. Zool. 40:1991;74-88.
29. Mishler B. D. The cladistic analysis of molecular and morphological data. Am. J. Phys. Anthrop. 94:1994;143-156.
30. Mishler B. D., Bremer K., Humphries C. J., Churchill S. P. The use of nucleic acid sequence data in phylogenetic reconstruction. Taxon. 37:1988;391-395.
31. Miyamoto M. M., Fitch W. M. Testing species phylogenies and phylogenetic methods with congruence. Syst. Biol. 44:1995;64-76.
32. M. Nei, 1991, Relative efficiencies of different tree-making methods for molecular data, Phylogenetic Analysis of DNA Sequences, M. M. MiyamotoJ. Cracraft, 90, 128, Oxford Univ. Press, New York.
33. Olmstead R. G., Sweere J. A. Combining data in phylogenetic systematics: an empirical approach using three molecular data sets in the Solanaceae. Syst. Biol. 34:1994;467-481.
34. Palmer J. D., Jansen R. K., Michaels H. J., Chase M. W., Manhart J. R. Chloroplast DNA variation and plant phylogeny. Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard. 75:1988;1180-1206.
35. Patterson C. Homology in classical and molecular biology. Mol. Biol. Evol. 5:1988;603-625.
36. Patterson C., Williams D. M., Humphries C. J. Congruence between molecular and morphological phylogenies. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 24:1993;153-188.
37. Sanderson M. J., Donoghue M. J. Patterns of variation in levels of homoplasy. Evolution. 43:1989;1781-1795.
38. Savard L., Li P., Strauss S. H., Chase M. W., Michaud M., Bousquet J. Chloroplast and nuclear gene sequences indicate Late Pennsylvanian time for the last common ancestor of extant seed plants. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 91:1994;5163-5167.
39. Smith J. F., Sytsma K. J. Molecules and morphology: congruence of data inColumnea. Plant Syst. Evol. 193:1994;37-52.
40. Snedecor G. W., Cochran W. G. Statistical Methods. 1989;Iowa State Univ. Press, Ames.
41. Sourdis J., Nei M. Relative efficiencies of the maximum parsimony and distance-matrix methods in obtaining the correct phylogenetic tree. Mol. Biol. Evol. 5:1988;298-311.
42. Steele K. P., Holsinger K. E., Jansen R. K., Taylor D. W. Phylogenetic relationships in green plants - A comment on the use of 5S ribosomal RNA sequences by Bremer et al. Taxon. 37:1988;135-138.
43. D. L. Swofford, 1996, PAUP*: Phylogenetic analysis using parsimony version 4.0, Illinois Natural History Survey, Champaign, IL.
44. Sytsma K. J. DNA and morphology: Inferences of plant phylogeny. Trends Ecol. Evol. 5:1990;104-110.
45. Sytsma K. J., Gottlieb L. D. Chloroplast DNA evidence for the origin of the genusHeterogauraClarkia. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 83:1986;5554-5557.
46. Sytsma K. J., Smith J. F., Berry P. E. Biogeography and evolution of morphology, breeding systems, flavonoids, and chloroplast DNA in the four Old World species ofFuchsia. Syst. Bot. 16:1991;257-269.
47. Titus T. A., Larson A. A molecular phylogenetic perspective on the evolutionary radiation of the salamander family Salamandridae. Syst. Biol. 44:1995;125-151.
48. Wake D. B. Homoplasy: the result of natural selection, or evidence of design limitations? Am. Nat. 138:1991;543-567.
49. Wheeler W. C., Honeycutt R. L. Paired sequence difference in ribosomal RNAs: evolutionary and phylogenetic implications. Mol. Biol. Evol. 5:1988;90-96.
50. Wollenberg K. J., Arnold J., Avise J. C. Recognizing the forest for the trees: testing temporal patterns of cladogenesis using a null model of stochastic diversification. Mol. Biol. Evol. 13:1996;833-849.