On the three-taxon approach to parsimony analysis

Cladistics

Volumn 14, Issue 4, 1998, Pages 363-381

  De Laet, Jan ^a   Smets, Erik ^a  

^a Instituut Voor Plantkunde   (Belgium)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0032421625     PISSN: 07483007     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1006/clad.1998.0075     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Camin J. H., Sokal R. R. A method for deducing branching sequences in phylogeny. Evolution. 19:1965;311-326.
2. De Laet J. A Reconsideration of Three-Item Analysis, the Use of Implied Weights in Cladistics, and a Practical Application in Gentianaceae. 1997;Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.
3. De Laet, J. Smets, E. 1995, Four-item analysis: an undirected implementation of the three-item approach. 3, College Station, Texas.
4. De Laet J., Smets E. On the TTSC-FTSC formulation of standard parsimony. Cladistics. 14:1998;239-248.
5. Deleporte P. Three-taxon statements and phylogeny reconstruction. Cladistics. 12:1996;273-289.
6. de Pinna M. C. C. Concepts and tests of homology in the cladistic paradigm. Cladistics. 7:1991;367-394.
7. Farris J. S. Inferring phylogenetic trees from chromosome inversion data. Syst. Zool. 27:1978;275-284.
8. Farris J. S. Distance data in phylogenetic analysis. Advances in Cladistics. Proceedings of the First Meeting of the Willi Hennig Society. 1981;New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, New York. p. 3-23.
9. Farris J. S. The logical basis of phylogenetic analysis. Platnick N., Funk V. A. Advances in Cladistics Vol. 2. Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the Willi Hennig Society. 1983;7-36 Columbia University Press, New York.
10. Farris J. S. Hennig86. Version 1.5. Program and Documentation. 1988;Port Jefferson Station, New York.
11. Farris J. S. Cycles. Cladistics. 13:1997;131-144.
12. Farris J. S., Källersjo M., Albert V. A., Allard M., Anderberg A., Bowditch B., Bult C., Carpenter J. M., Crowe T. M., De Laet J., Fitzhugh K., Frost D., Goloboff P., Humphries C. J., Jondelius U., Judd D., Karis P. O., Lipscomb D., Luckow M., Mindell D., Muona J., Nixon K., Presch, W., Seberg O., Sidall M. E., Struwe L., Tehler A., Wenzel J., Wheeler Q., Wheeler W. Explanation. Cladistics. 11:1995;211-218.
13. Felsenstein J. Alternative methods of phylogenetic inference and their interrelationship. Syst. Zool. 28:1979;49-62.
14. Fitch W. M. Towards defining the course of evolution: minimum change for a specific tree topology. Syst. Zool. 20:1971;406-416.
15. Fitch W. A non-sequential method for constructing trees and hierarchical classifications. J. Mol. Evol. 18:1981;30-37.
16. Goloboff P. A. NONA version 1.1. 1993.
17. Harvey A. W. Three-taxon statements: more precisely, an abuse of parsimony. Cladistics. 8:1992;345-354.
18. Kluge A. G. Three-taxon transformations in phylogenetic inference: ambiguity and distortion as regards explanatory power. Cladistics. 9:1993;246-259.
19. Kluge A. G. Moving targets and shell games. Cladistics. 10:1994;403-413.
20. Kluge A. G., Farris J. S. Quantitative phyletics and the evolution of Anurans. Syst. Zool. 18:1969;1-32.
21. Ladiges P. Y., Prober S. M., Nelson G. Cladistic and biogeographic analysis of the 'blue ash' Eucalypts. Cladistics. 8:1992;103-124.
22. Lundberg J. G. Wagner networks and ancestors. Syst. Zool. 21:1972;398-413.
23. Morrone J. J., Carpenter J. M. In search of a method for cladistic biogeography: an empirical comparison of component analysis, Brooks parsimony analysis, and three-area statements. Cladistics. 10:1994;99-153.
24. Nelson G. Reply to Harvey. Cladistics. 8:1992;355-360.
25. Nelson G. Reply. Cladistics. 9:1993;261-265.
26. Nelson G. Homology and systematics. Hall B. K. Homology: the hierarchical basis of comparative biology. 1994;101-149 Academic Press, San Diego.
27. Nelson, G. 1996, Nullius in verba.
28. Nelson G., Platnick N. I. Three-taxon statements: a more precise use of parsimony. Cladistics. 7:1991;351-366.
29. Nelson G., Ladiges P. Y. Three-area statements: standard assumptions for biogeographic analysis. Syst. Zool. 40:1991a;470-485.
30. Nelson G., Ladiges P. Standard assumptions for biogeographic analysis. Austr. Syst. Bot. 4:1991b;41-58.
31. Nelson G., Ladiges P. Information content and fractional weight of three-item statements. Syst. Biol. 41:1992;490-494.
32. Nelson G., Ladiges P. Y. Missing data and three-item analysis. Cladistics. 9:1993;111-113.
33. Nelson G., Ladiges P. Y. Three-item consensus: empirical test of fractional weighting. Scotland R. W., Siebert D. J., Williams D. M. Models in phylogeny reconstruction. 1994;193-209 Oxford University Press, Oxford.
34. Nelson G., Ladiges P. Y. TAX: MSDos Computer Programs for Systematics. 1995.
35. Nelson G., Ladiges P. Y. Paralogy in cladistic biogeo graphy and analysis of paralogy-free subtrees. American Museum Novitates. 3167:1996;1-58.
36. Nixon K. C., Carpenter J. M. On outgroups. Cladistics. 9:1993;413-426.
37. Patterson C., Johnson G. D. The intermuscular bones and ligaments of telostean fishes. Smiths. Contr. Zool. 559:1995;1-85.
38. Platnick N. I. Philosophy and the transformation of cladi stics. Syst. Zool. 28:1979;537-546.
39. Platnick N. I. Character optimization and weighting: differences between the standard and three-taxon approaches to phylogenetic inference. Cladistics. 9:1993;267-272.
40. Platnick N. I., Griswold C. E., Coddington J. A. On missing entries in cladistic analysis. Cladistics. 7:1991;337-343.
41. Platnick N. I., Humphries C. J., Nelson G., Williams D. M. Is Farris optimization perfect?: three-taxon statements and multiple branching. Cladistics. 12:1996;243-252.
42. Rieppel O. C. Fundamentals of Comparative Biology. 1988;Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel.
43. Sattath S., Tversky A. Additive similarity trees. Psychometrika. 42:1977;319-345.
44. Swofford, D. L. 1993, Illinois Natural History Survey, Champaign.
45. Swofford D. L., Olsen G. J., Wadell P. J., Hillis D. M. Phylogenetic inference. Hillis D. M., Moritz C., Mable B. K. Molecular systematics", 2nd ed. (. 1996;407-514 Sinauer Associates Inc. Sunderland.
46. Swofford D. L., Maddison W. P. Reconstructing ancestral states under Wagner parsimony. Mathematical Biosciences. 87:1987;199-229.
47. Udovicic F., McFadden G. I., Ladiges P. Y. Phylogeny ofEucalyptusAngophora. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 4:1995;247-256.
48. Wilkinson M. Three-taxon statements: when is a parsimony analysis also a clique analysis? Cladistics. 10:1994;221-223.