Matrix representation with parsimony, taxonomic congruence, and total evidence

Systematic Biology

Volumn 51, Issue 1, 2002, Pages 151-155

  Pisani, Davide ^a,b   Wilkinson, Mark ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

^b DEPARTMENT OF LIFE SCIENCES   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; GENETIC DATABASE; GENETIC PROCEDURES; PHYLOGENY; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; DATABASES, GENETIC; GENETIC TECHNIQUES; MODELS, GENETIC; PHYLOGENY;

EID: 0036005524     PISSN: 10635157     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/106351502753475925     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Barrett, M., M. J. Donoghue, and E. Sober. 1991. Against consensus. Syst. Zool. 40:486-493.
2. 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.
3. Baum, B. R., and M. Ragan. 1993. Reply to A.G. Rodrigo’s "A comment on Baum’s method for combining phylogenetic trees". Taxon 42:637-640.
4. Bininda-Emonds, O. R. P., and H. N. Bryant. 1998. Properties of matrix representation with parsimony analysis. Syst. Biol. 47:497-508.
5. 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.
6. Bininda-Emonds, O. R. P., and M. Sanderson. 2001. Assessment of the accuracy of matrix representation with parsimony analysis supertree construction. Syst. Biol. 50:565-579.
7. Gordon, A. D. 1986. Consensus supertrees: The synthesis of rooted trees containing overlapping sets of labelled leaves. J. Classif. 9:335-348.
8. Kluge, A. G. 1989. A concern for evidence and a phylogenetic hypothesis of relationships among Epicrates (Boidae, Serpentes). Syst. Zool. 38:7-25.
9. Lapointe, F. J., and G. Cucumel. 1997. The average consensus procedure: combination of weighted trees containing identical or overlapping sets of taxa. Syst. Biol. 46:306-312.
10. Liu, R. F., 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.
11. Purvis, A. 1995a. A composite estimate of primate phylogeny. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London B 348:405-421.
12. Purvis, A. 1995b. A modification to Baum and Ragan’s method for combining phylogenetic trees. Syst. Biol. 44:251-255.
13. Ragan, M. A. 1992. Phylogenetic inference based on matrix representation of trees. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 1:53-58.
14. Semple, C., and M. Steel. 2000. A supertree method for rooted trees. Discrete Appl. Math. 105:147-158.
15. Strimmer, K., and A. Von Haeseler. 1996. Quartet puzzling: A quartet maximum-likelihood method for reconstructing tree topologies. Mol. Biol. Evol. 13:964-969.
16. Wilkinson, M., J. L. Thorley, D. T. J. Littlewood, and R. A. Bray. 2001. Towards a phylogenetic supertree for the Platyhelminthes? Pages 292-301 in Interrelationships of the Platyhelminthes (D. T. J. Littlewood and R. A. Bray, eds.). Chapman-Hall, London.