Misinformative characters and phylogeny shape

Systematic Biology

Volumn 48, Issue 1, 1999, Pages 153-169

  Salisbury, Benjamin A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

Author keywords

Character simulation; Phylogenetic accuracy; Phylogenetic bias; Tree balance; Tree shape; Tree stemminess; Tree topology

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLASSIFICATION; COMPUTER SIMULATION; EVOLUTION; GENETICS; HISTOLOGY; PHYLOGENY; REPRODUCIBILITY; STATISTICAL MODEL; TREE;

COMPUTER SIMULATION; EVOLUTION; MODELS, STATISTICAL; PHYLOGENY; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; TREES;

EID: 0033084982     PISSN: 10635157     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/106351599260508     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. BAUM, B. R., AND G. F. ESTABROOK. 1996. Impact of outgroup inclusion on estimates by parsimony of undirected branching of ingroup phylogenetic lines. Taxon 45:243-257.
2. BOORE, J. L., T. M. COLLINS, D. STANTON, L. L. DAEHLER, AND W. M. BROWN. 1995. Deducing the pattern of arthropod phylogeny from mitochondrial DNA rearrangements. Nature 376:163-165.
3. COLLESS, D. H. 1982. Review of Phylogenetics: The theory and practice of phylogenctic systematics, by E. O. Wiley. Syst. Zool. 31:100-104.
4. COLLESS, D. H. 1995. Relative symmetry of cladograms and phenograms: An empirical study. Syst. Biol. 44:102-108.
5. COLLESS, D. H. 1996. A further note on symmetry of taxonomic trees. Syst. Biol. 45:385-390.
6. ESTABROOK, G. F. 1977. Does common equal primitive? Syst. Bot. 2:36-42.
7. ESTABROOK, G. F., J. G. STRAUCH, JR., AND K. L. FlALA. 1977. An application of compatibility analysis to the Blacksmiths' data on Orthopteroid insects. Syst. Zool. 26:269-276.
8. FARRIS, J. S. 1969. A successive approximations approach to character weighting. Syst. Zool. 18:374-385.
9. FELSENSTEIN, J. 1978. Cases in which parsimony or compatibility methods will be positively misleading. Syst. Zool. 27:401-410.
10. FIALA, K. L., AND R. R. SOKAL. 1985. Factors determining the accuracy of cladogram estimation: Evaluation using computer simulation. Evolution 39:609-622.
11. GOLOBOFF, P. A. 1993. Estimating character weights during tree search. Cladistics 9:83-91.
12. GUYER, C., AND J. B. SLOWINSKI. 1991. Comparisons of observed phylogenetic topologies with null expectations among three monophyletic lineages. Evolution 45:340-350.
13. GUYER, C., AND J. B. SLOWINSKI. 1993. Adaptive radiation and the topology of large phytogenies. Evolution 47:253-263.
14. HEARD, S. B. 1992. Patterns in tree balance among cladistic, phenetic, and randomly generated phylogenetic trees. Evolution 46:1818-1826.
15. HEARD, S. B. 1996. Patterns in phylogenetic tree balance with variable and evolving speciation rates. Evolution 50:2141-2148.
16. HEARD, S. B., AND A. MOOERS. 1996. Imperfect information and the balance of cladograms and phenograms. Syst. Biol. 45:115-118.
17. HENDY, M. D., AND D. PENNY. 1989. A framework for the quantitative study of evolutionary trees. Syst. Zool. 38:297-309.
18. HILLIS, D. M. 1996. Inferring complex phytogenies. Nature 383:130-131.
19. HUELSENBECK, J. P., J. J. BULL, AND C. W. CUNNINGHAM. 1996. Combining data in phylogenetic analysis. Trends Ecol. Evol. 11:152-158.
20. HUELSENBECK, J. P., AND M. KIRKFATRICK. 1996. Do phylogenetic methods produce trees with biased shapes? Evolution 50:1418-1424.
21. KIM, J. 1993. Improving the accuracy of phylogenetic estimation by combining different methods. Syst. Biol. 42:331-340.
22. KIM, J., F. J. ROHLF, AND R. R. SOKAL. 1993. The accuracy of phylogenetic estimation using the neighborjoining method. Evolution 47:471-186.
23. KIRKPATKICK, M., AND M. SLATKIN. 1993. Searching for evolutionary patterns in the shape of a phylogenetic tree. Evolution 47:1171-1181.
24. LE QUESNE, W. J. 1969. A method of selection of characters in numerical taxonomy. Syst. Zool. 18:201-205.
25. LYNCH, M. 1989. Phylogenetic hypotheses under the assumption of neutral quantitative-genetic variation. Evolution 43:1-17.
26. MEACHAM, C. A. 1984. The role of hypothesized direction of characters in the estimation of evolutionary characters. Taxon 33:26-38.
27. MOOERS, A. Ø. 1995. Tree imbalance and tree completeness. Evolution 49:379-385.
28. MOOERS, A. Ø., AND S. B. HEARD. 1997. Inferring evolutionary process from phylogenetic tree shape. Q. Rev. Biol. 72:31-54.
29. MOOERS, A. Ø., R. D. M. PAGE, A. PURVIS, AND P. H. HARVEY. 1995. Phylogenetic noise leads to unbalanced cladistic tree reconstructions. Syst. Biol. 44:332-342.
30. NOREEN, E. W. 1989. Computer-intensive methods for testing hypotheses: An introduction. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
31. ROGERS, J. S. 1996. Central moments and probability distributions of three measures of phylogenetic tree imbalance. Syst. Biol. 45:99-110.
32. ROHLF, F. J., W. S. CHANG, R. R. SOKAL, AND J. KIM. 1990. Accuracy of estimated phylogenies: Effects of tree topology and evolutionary model. Evolution 44:1671-1684.
33. SHAO, K., AND R. R. SOKAL. 1990. Tree balance. Syst. Zool. 39:266-276.
34. SLOWINSKI, J. B. 1990. Probabilities of n-trees under two models: A demonstration that asymmetrical interior nodes are not improbable. Syst. Zool. 39:89-94.
35. WAKELEY, J. 1996. The excess of transitions among nucleotide substitutions: New methods of estimating transition bias underscore its significance. Trends Ecol. Evol. 11:158-163.
36. WHEELER, W. C. 1995. Sequence alignment, parameter sensitivity, and the phylogenetic analysis of molecular data. Syst. Biol. 44:321-331.