Total Evidence, Consensus, and Bat Phylogeny: A Distance-Based Approach

Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution

Volumn 11, Issue 1, 1999, Pages 55-66

  Lapointe, François Joseph ^a   Kirsch, John A W ^b   Hutcheon, James M ^b  

^a UNIVERSITÉ DE MONTRÉAL   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DNA;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BAT; BLOOD EXAMINATION; CLASSIFICATION; DNA BASE COMPOSITION; GENETICS; HISTOLOGY; MOLECULAR EVOLUTION; PHYLOGENY; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICS;

ANIMALS; BASE COMPOSITION; CHIROPTERA; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; DNA; EVOLUTION, MOLECULAR; HEMATOLOGIC TESTS; PHYLOGENY;

EID: 0033072060     PISSN: 10557903     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1006/mpev.1998.0561     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Barrett M., Donoghue M. J., Sober E. Against consensus. Syst. Zool. 40:1991;486-493.
2. 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.
3. Carnap R. Logical Foundations of Probability. 1950;Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago.
4. Chippindale P. T., Wiens J. J. Weighting, partitioning, and combining characters in phylogenetic analysis. Syst. Biol. 43:1994;278-287.
5. de Queiroz A. For consensus (sometimes). Syst. Biol. 42:1993;368-372.
6. de Queiroz A., Donoghue M. J., Kim J. Separate versus combined analysis of phylogenetic evidence. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 26:1995;657-681.
7. Eernisse D. J., Kluge A. G. Taxonomic congruence versus total evidence, and the phylogeny of amniotes inferred from fossils, molecules and morphology. Mol. Biol. Evol. 10:1993;1170-1195.
8. Farris J. S., Källersjö M., Kluge A. G., Bult C. Testing significance of incongruence. Cladistics. 10:1995;315-319.
9. Felsenstein J. Cases in which parsimony or compatibility methods will be positively misleading. Syst. Zool. 27:1978;401-410.
10. Felsenstein J. Confidence limits on phylogenies: An approach using the bootstrap. Evolution. 39:1985;783-791.
11. Felsenstein, J. 1993, PHYLIP, Phylogenetic Inference Package, Program and Documentation, Univ. of Washington, Seattle.
12. Huelsenbeck J. P., Bull J. J. A likelihood ratio test for detection of conflicting phylogenetic signal. Syst. Biol. 45:1996;92-98.
13. Huelsenbeck J. P., Bull J. J., Cunningham W. Combining data in phylogenetic analysis. Trends Ecol. Evol. 11:1996;152-158.
14. Huelsenbeck J. P., Swofford D. L., Cunningham C. W., Bull J. J., Waddell P. W. Is character weighting a panacea for the problem of data heterogeneity in phylogenetic analysis. Syst. Biol. 43:1994;288-291.
15. Hutcheon J. M., Kirsch J. A. W., Pettigrew J. D. Base-compositional biases and the bat problem. III. The question of microchiropteran monophyly. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B. 353:1998;607-617.
16. Kirsch J. A. W., Archer M. Polythetic cladistics, or, when parsimony's not enough: The relationships of carnivorous marsupials. Carnivorous Marsupials. 1982;Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, Mosman. p. 595-619.
17. Kirsch J. A. W., Lapointe F.-J. Total evidence, consensus, and estimation of the positions of fossil kangaroos: A distance-based approach. J. Vert. Paleont. 17:1997;57A.
18. Kirsch, J. A. W. Springer, M. S. Lapointe, F.-J. Out of Africa: A distance-based approach to character and taxonomic congruence in placental phylogeny, Cladistics.
19. Kluge A. G. A concern for evidence and a phylogenetic hypothesis of relationships amongEpicrates. Syst. Biol. 38:1989;7-25.
20. Kluge A. G., Wolf A. J. Cladistics: what's in a word. Cladistics. 9:1993;183-199.
21. Koopman K. F. Chiroptera: Systematics. Handbook of Zoology, VIII, 60, Mammalia. 1994;de Gruyter, Berlin.
22. Krajewski C., Dickerman A. W. Bootstrap analysis of phylogenetic trees derived from DNA hybridization distances. Syst. Zool. 39:1990;383-390.
23. Landry P.-A., Lapointe F.-J. Estimation of missing distances in path-length matrices: Problems and solutions. Mirkin B., McMorris F. R., Roberts F. S., Rzhetsky A. Mathematical Hierarchies and Biology. IMACS Series in Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science. 1997;209-224 American Mathematical Society, Providence.
24. Landry P.-A., Lapointe F.-J., Kirsch J. A. W. Estimating phylogenies from lacunose distance matrices: Additive is superior to ultrametric estimation. Mol. Biol. Evol. 13:1996;818-823.
25. Lanyon S. Detecting internal inconsistencies in distance data. Syst. Zool. 34:1985;397-403.
26. Lanyon S. Phylogenetic frameworks: Towards a firmer foundation for the comparative approach. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 49:1993;45-61.
27. Lapointe F.-J. How to validate phylogenetic trees? A stepwise procedure. Hayashi C., Oshumi N., Yajima K., Tanaka Y., Bock H. H., Baba Y. Data Science, Classification, and Related Methods. 1998;71-88 Springer-Verlag, Tokyo.
28. Lapointe F.-J., Cucumel G. The average consensus procedure: Combination of weighted trees containing identical or overlapping sets of taxa. Syst. Biol. 46:1997;306-312.
29. Lapointe F.-J., Kirsch J. A. W. Estimating phylogenies from lacunose distance matrices, with special reference to DNA hybridization data. Mol. Biol. Evol. 12:1995;266-284.
30. Lapointe F.-J., Kirsch J. A. W., Bleiweiss R. Jackknifing of weighted trees: Validation of phylogenies reconstructed from distance matrices. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 3:1994;256-267.
31. Mason-Gamer R. J., Kellogg E. K. Testing for phylogenetic conflict among molecular data sets in the tribe Triticeae (Gramineae). Syst. Biol. 45:1996;524-545.
32. Miller G. S. Revision of the North American bats of the family Vespertilionidae. North Am. Fauna. 13:1897;5-135.
33. Miyamoto M. M., Fitch W. M. Testing species phylogenies and phylogenetic methods with congruence. Syst. Biol. 44:1995;64-76.
34. Olmstead R. G., Sweere J. A. Combining data in phylogenetic systematics: An empirical approach using three molecular data sets in the Solanacae. Syst. Biol. 43:1994;467-481.
35. Omland K. E. Character congruence between a molecular and a morphological phylogeny for dabbling ducks (Anas. Syst. Biol. 43:1994;369-386.
36. Page R. D. M. TREEVIEW: An application to display phylogenetic trees on personal computers. Comput. Appl. Biosci. 12:1996;357-358.
37. Pierson, E. D. 1986, Molecular Systematics of the Microchiroptera: Higher Taxon Relationships and Biogeography, Univ. of California, Berkeley.
38. Poe S. Data set incongrence and the phylogeny of Crocodilians. Syst. Biol. 45:1996;393-414.
39. Popper K. R. Logik der Forschung: Zur Erkenntnistheorie der modernen Naturwissenschaft. 1935;Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
40. Rodrigo A. G., Kelly-Borges M., Bergquist P. R., Bergquist P. L. A randomisation test of the null hypothesis that two cladograms are sample estimates of a parametric phylogenetic tree. NZ J. Bot. 31:1993;257-268.
41. Sarich V. M., Cronin J. E. Molecular systematics of the primates. Goodman M., Tashian R. E. Molecular Anthropology, Genes, and Proteins in the Evolutionary Ascent of the Primates. 1976;141-170 Plenum, New York.
42. Simmons N. G. A reappraisal of interfamilial relationships of bats. Kunz T. H., Racey P. A. Bat Biology and Conservation. 1998;3-36 Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.
43. Swofford, D. L. 1993, PAUP: Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony, Illinois Natural History Survey, Champaign.
44. Wiens J. J., Chippindale P. T. Combining and weighting characters and the prior agreement approach revisited. Syst. Biol. 43:1994;564-566.