Assessment of the accuracy of matrix representation with parsimony analysis supertree construction

Systematic Biology

Volumn 50, Issue 4, 2001, Pages 565-579

  Bininda Emonds, Olaf R P ^a,b   Sanderson, Michael J ^b  

^a LEIDEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Accuracy; Matrix representation; Missing data; MRP; Phylogenetic supertrees; Resolution; Taxonomic congruence; Total evidence

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; BIOMETRY; CLASSIFICATION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; PHYLOGENY; STATISTICAL MODEL;

BIOMETRY; CLASSIFICATION; MODELS, GENETIC; MODELS, STATISTICAL; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; PHYLOGENY;

EID: 0035527411     PISSN: 10635157     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/106351501750435112     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. BAUM, B. R. 1992. Combining trees as a way of combining data sets for phylogenetic inference, and the desirability of combining gene trees. Taxon 41:3-10.
2. BAUM, B. R., AND M. A. RAGAN. 1993. Reply to A.G. Rodrigo's "A comment on Baum's method for combining phylogenetic trees." Taxon 42:637-640.
3. BININDA-EMONDS, O. R. P., AND H. N. BRYANT. 1998. Properties of matrix representation with parsimony analyses. Syst. Biol. 47:497-508.
4. BININDA-EMONDS, O. R. P., J. L. GITTLEMAN, AND A. PURVIS. 1999. Building large trees by combining phylogenetic information: A complete phylogeny of the extant Carnivora (Mammalia). Biol. Rev. 74:143-175.
5. BROOKS, D. R. 1981. Hennig's parasitological method: A proposed solution. Syst. Zool. 30:229-249.
6. COLLESS, D. H. 1980. Congruence between morphometric and allozyme data for Menidia species: A reappraisal. Syst. Zool. 29:288-299.
7. COLLESS, D. H. 1981. Predictivity and stability in classifications: Some comments on recent studies. Syst. Zool. 30:325-331.
8. DAY, W. H. E., AND F. R. MCMORRIS. 1985. A formalization of consensus index measures. Bull. Math. Biol. 47:215-229.
9. DOYLE, J. J. 1992. Gene trees and species trees: Molecular systematics as one-character taxonomy. Syst. Bot. 17:144-163.
10. FELSENSTEIN, J. 1985. Confidence limits on phylogenies: An approach using the bootstrap. Evolution 39:783-791.
11. GOLDMAN, N., J. P. ANDERSON, AND A. G. RODRIGO. 2000. Likelihood-based tests of topologies in phylogenetics. Syst. Biol. 49:652-670.
12. GUSFIELD, D. 1991. Efficient algorithms for inferring evolutionary trees. Networks 21:19-28.
13. GUSFIELD, D. 1997. Algorithms on strings, trees, and sequences: Computer science and computational biology. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.
14. HILLIS, D. M., J. P. HUELSENBECK, AND C. W. CUNNINGHAM. 1994. Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies. Science 264:671-677.
15. 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.
16. KITCHING, I. J., P. L. FOREY, C. J. HUMPHRIES, AND D. M. WILLIAMS. 1998. Cladistics: The theory and practice of parsimony analysis, 2nd edition. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford.
17. KLUGE, A. G. 1989. A concern for evidence and a phylogenetic hypothesis of relationships among Epicrates (Boidae, Serpentes). Syst. Zool. 38:7-25.
18. LIU, F.-G. R., M. M. MIYAMOTO, N. P. FREIRE, P. Q. ONG, M. R. TENNANT, T. S. YOUNG, AND K. F. GUGEL. 2001. Molecular and morphological supertrees for eutherian (placental) mammals. Science 291:1786-1789.
19. MADDISON, D. R., D. L. SWOFFORD, AND W. P. MADDISON. 1997. NEXUS: An extensible file format for systematic information. Syst. Biol. 46:590-621.
20. MADDISON, W. P. 1989. Reconstructing character evolution on polytomous cladograms. Cladistics 5:365-377.
21. MARGUSH, T., AND F. R. MCMORRIS. 1981. Consensus n-trees. Bull. Math. Biol. 43:239-244.
22. MICKEVICH, M. F. 1978. Taxonomic congruence. Syst. Zool. 27:143-158.
23. PLATNICK, N. I., C. E. GRISWOLD, AND J. A. CODDINGTON. 1991. On missing entries in cladistic analysis. Cladistics 7:337-343.
24. POINCARÉ, H. 1901. Second complément à l'analysis situs. Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. 32:277-308.
25. PONSTEIN, J. 1966. Matrices in graph and network theory. Van Gorcum, Assen, The Netherlands.
26. PURVIS, A. 1995a. A composite estimate of primate phylogeny. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London. B 348:405-421.
27. PURVIS, A. 1995b. A modification to Baum and Ragan's method for combining phylogenetic trees. Syst. Biol. 44:251-255.
28. PURVIS, A., AND A. J. WEBSTER. 1999. Phylogenetically independent comparisons and primate phylogeny. Pages 44-70 in Comparative primate socioecology (P. C. Lee, ed.). Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.
29. RAGAN, M. A. 1992. Phylogenetic inference based on matrix representation of trees. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 1:53-58.
30. RAMBAUT, A., AND N. C. GRASSLY. 1997. Seq-Gen: An application for the Monte Carlo simulation of DNA sequence evolution along phylogenetic trees. Comput. Appl. Biosci. 13:235-238.
31. ROBINSON, D. F., AND L. R. FOULDS. 1981. Comparison of phylogenetic trees. Math. Biosci. 53:131-147.
32. RODRIGO, A. G. 1993. A comment on Baum's method for combining phylogenetic trees. Taxon 42:631-636.
33. RODRIGO, A. G. 1996. On combining cladograms. Taxon 45:267-274.
34. RONQUIST, F. 1996. Matrix representation of trees, redundancy, and weighting. Syst. Biol. 45:247-253.
35. ROSS, S. M. 1996. Stochastic processes, 2nd edition. Wiley, New York.
36. SANDERSON, M. J., A. PURVIS, AND C. HENZE. 1998. Phylogenetic supertrees: Assembling the trees of life. Trends Ecol. Evol. 13:105-109.
37. STEEL, M. A., AND D. PENNY. 1993. Distributions of tree comparison metrics - some new results. Syst. Biol. 42:126-141.
38. STOTHARD, J. R. 2000. Future trypanosomatid phylogenies: Refined homologies, supertrees and networks. Mem. Inst. Oswaldo Cruz 95:523-526.
39. SWOFFORD, D. L. 1991. When are phylogeny estimates from molecular and morphological data incongruent? Pages 295-333 in Phylogenetic analysis of DNA sequences (M. M. Miyamoto and J. Cracraft, eds.). Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford.
40. SWOFFORD, D. L. 1999. PAUP*. Phylogenetic analysis using parsimony (*and other methods). Version 4. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts.
41. SWOFFORD, D. L., G. J. OLSEN, P. J. WADDELL, AND D. M. HILLIS. 1996. Phylogenetic inference. Pages 407-514 in Molecular systematics (D. M. Hillis, C. Moritz, and B. K. Mable, eds.). Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts.
42. WIENS, J. J. 1998. Does adding characters with missing data increase or decrease phylogenetic accuracy? Syst. Biol. 47:625-640.
43. WILKINSON, M. 1995. Coping with abundant missing entries in phylogenetic inference using parsimony. Syst. Biol. 44:501-514.
44. WILKINSON, M., J. L. THORLEY, D. T. J. LITTLEWOOD, AND R. A. BRAY. 2001. Towards a phylogenetic supertree of Platyhelminthes? Pages 292-301 in Interrelationships of the Platyhelminthes (D. T. J. Littlewood and R. A. Bray, eds.). Taylor and Francis, London.
45. WOJCIECHOWSKI, M. F., M. J. SANDERSON, K. P. STEELE, AND A. LISTON. 2000. Molecular phylogeny of the "temperate herbaceous tribes" of papilionoid legumes: A supertree approach. Pages 277-298 in Advances in Legume Systematics (P. Herendeen and A. Bruneau, eds.). Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, U.K. (WWW Internet address for full tree: http://loco. ucdavis.edu/marty/HGsupertree.html)