Sampling confidence envelopes of phylogenetic trees for combinability testing: A reply to Rodrigo

Systematic Biology

Volumn 48, Issue 3, 1999, Pages 596-603

  Lutzoni, François ^a   Barker, F Keith ^a,b  

^a FIELD MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; PHYLOGENY;

CONFIDENCE INTERVALS; PHYLOGENY;

EID: 0033183722     PISSN: 10635157     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/106351599260166     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. BARRETT, M., M. J. DONOGHUE, AND E. SOBER. 1991. Against consensus. Syst. Zool. 40:486-493.
2. BULL, J. J., J. P. HUELSENBECK, C. W. CUNNINGHAM, D. L. SWOFFORD, AND P. J. WADDELL. 1993. Partitioning and combining data in phylogenetic analysis. Syst. Biol. 42:384-397.
3. FAITH, D. P. 1991. Cladistic permutation tests for monophyly and nonmonophyly. Syst. Zool. 40:366-375.
4. FELSENSTEIN, J. 1981. Evolutionary trees from DNA sequence: A maximum likelihood approach. J. Mol. Evol. 17:368-376.
5. FELSENSTEIN, J., AND H. KISHINO. 1993. Is there something wrong with the bootstrap on phylogenies? A reply to Hillis and Bull. Syst. Biol. 42:193-200.
6. HASEGAWA, M., H. KISHINO, AND T. YANO. 1985. Dating the human-ape split by a molecular clock of mitochondrial DNA. J. Mol. Evol. 22:160-174.
7. HILLIS, D. M., AND J. J. BULL. 1993. An empirical test of bootstrapping as a method for assessing confidence in phylogenetic analysis. Syst. Biol. 42:182-192.
8. KISHINO, H., AND M. HASEGAWA. 1989. Evaluation of the maximum likelihood estimate of the evolutionary tree topologies from DNA sequence data, and the branching order in Hominoidea. J. Mol. Evol. 29:170-179.
9. KLUGE, A. G. 1989. A concern for evidence and a phylogenetic hypothesis of relationships among Epicrates (Boidae, Serpentes). Syst. Zool. 38:7-25.
10. LUTZONI, F. 1997. Phylogeny of lichen-and nonlichen-forming omphalinoid mushrooms and the utility of testing for combinability among multiple data sets. Syst. Biol. 46:373-406.
11. LUTZONI, F., AND R. VILGALYS. 1995. Integration of morphological and molecular data sets in estimating fungal phylogenies. Can. J. Bot. 73(suppl. 1):S649-S659.
12. MIYAMOTO, M. M. 1985. Consensus cladograms and general classifications. Cladistics 1:186-189.
13. RODRIGO, A. G. 1998. Combinability of phylogenies and bootstrap confidence envelopes. Syst. Biol. 47:727-733.
14. RODRIGO, A. G., M. KELLY-BORGES, P. R. BERGQUIST, AND P. L. BERGQUIST. 1993. A randomisation test of the null hypothesis that two cladograms are sample estimates of a parametric phylogenetic tree. N. Z. J. Bot. 31:257-268.
15. SANDERSON, M. J. 1989. Confidence limits on phylogenies: The bootstrap revisited. Cladistics 5:113-129.
16. SANDERSON, M. J., AND M. J. DONOGHUE. 1989. Patterns of variation in levels of homoplasy. Evolution 43:1781-1795.
17. SWOFFORD, D. L. 1998. PAUP*. Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony (*and other methods). Version 4.0. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts.
18. TEMPLETON, A. R. 1983. Phylogenetic inference from restriction endonuclease cleavage site maps with particular reference to the humans and apes. Evolution 37:221-244.
19. YANG, Z. 1996. Maximum-likelihood models for combined analysis of multiple sequence data. J. Mol. Evol. 42:587-596.
20. YANG, Z. 1998. Phylogenetic analysis by maximum likelihood (PAML), Version 1.4. University College, London.