Efficiency of strict consensus trees

Systematic Biology

Volumn 50, Issue 4, 2001, Pages 610-613

  Wilkinson, Mark ^a   Thorley, Joseph L ^a,b  

^a DEPARTMENT OF LIFE SCIENCES   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; BIOMETRY; PHYLOGENY;

BIOMETRY; MODELS, GENETIC; PHYLOGENY;

EID: 0035527412     PISSN: 10635157     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10635150121031     Document Type: Review

References (21)

1. GORDON, A. D. 1980. On the assessment and comparison of classifications. Pages 149-160 in Analyse de Donnees et Informatique (R. Tomassone, ed.). INRIA, LeChesnay, France.
2. JENNER, R. A., AND F. R. SCHRAM. 1999. The grand game of metazoan phylogeny: Rules and strategies. Biol. Rev. 74:121-142.
3. KÄLLERJÖ, M., J. S. FARRIS, A. G. KLUGE, AND C. BULT. 1992. Skewness and permutation. Cladistics 8:275-287.
4. LECLERC, B. 1998. Consensus of classifications: The case of trees. Pages 81-90 in Advances in data science and classification (A. Rizzi, M. Vichi, and H.-H. Bock, eds.). Springer, Berlin.
5. LUCAS, S. G., AND Z. LUO. 1993. Adelobasileus from the Upper Triassic of West Texas: The oldest mammal. J. Vert. Paleonol. 13:309-334.
6. MARGUSH, T., AND F. R. MCMORRIS. 1981. Consensus n-trees. Bull. Math. Biol. 43:239-244.
7. NIELSEN, C., N. SCHARFF, AND D. EIBYE-JACOBSEN. 1996. Cladistic analysis of the animal kingdom. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 57:385-410.
8. PAGE, R. D. M. 1992. Comments on the information content of classifications. Cladistics 8:87-95.
9. REEDER, T. W. 1995. Phylogenetic relationships among phrynosomatid lizards as inferred from mitochondrial ribosomal DNA sequences: Substitutional bias and the information content of transitions relative to transversions. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 4:203-222.
10. ROHLF, F. J. 1982. Consensus indices for comparing classifications. Math. Biosci. 59:131-144.
11. SUTER, S. J. 1994. Cladistic analysis of cassiduloid echinoids: Trying to see the phylogeny for the trees. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 53:31-72.
12. SWOFFORD, D. L. 1991. When are phylogency 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.
13. THORLEY, J. L., AND R. D. M. PAGE. 2000. RadCon: Phylogenetic tree comparison and consensus. Bioinformatics 16:486-487.
14. THORLEY, J. L., M. WILKINSON, AND M. A. CHARLESTON. 1998. The information content of consensus trees. Pages 91-98 in Advances in data science and classification (A. Rizzi, M. Vichi, and H.-H. Bock, eds.). Springer, Berlin.
15. WIENS, J. J. 1998. Does adding characters with missing data increase or decrease phylogenetic accuracy? Syst. Biol. 47:625-640.
16. WILKINSON, M. 1994. Common cladistic information and its consensus representation: Reduced Adams and reduced cladistic consensus trees and profiles. Syst. Biol. 43:343-368.
17. WILKINSON, M. 1995. Coping with missing entries in phylogenetic inference using parsimony. Syst. Biol. 44:501-514.
18. WILKINSON, M. 1996. Majority-rule reduced consensus methods and their use in bootstrapping. Mol. Biol. Evol. 13:437-444.
19. WILKINSON, M. 1999. Choosing and interpreting a tree for the oldest mammal. J. Vert. Paleonotol. 19: 187-190.
20. WILKINSON, M., AND M. J. BENTON. 1996. Sphenodontid phylogeny and the problems of multiple trees. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London B 351:1-16.
21. WILKINSON, M., S. J. SUTER, AND V. L. SHIRES. 1996. The reduced cladistic consensus method and cassiduloid echinoid phylogeny. Hist. Biol. 12:63-73.