An examination of the monophyly of morning glory taxa using Bayesian phylogenetic inference

Systematic Biology

Volumn 51, Issue 5, 2002, Pages 740-753

  Miller, Richard E ^a,b   Buckley, Thomas R ^a,c   Manos, Paul S ^a  

^a DUKE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b SOUTHEASTERN LOUISIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c LANDCARE RESEARCH   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

Bayesian statistics; Convergence; Ipomoea; ITS; Markov chain Monte Carlo; Maximum likelihood; Maximum parsimony; Waxy

Indexed keywords

DNA;

BAYES THEOREM; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; CONFERENCE PAPER; GENE; GENETICS; IPOMOEA; MONTE CARLO METHOD; PHYLOGENY; PROBABILITY; STATISTICAL MODEL;

BAYES THEOREM; DNA; GENES, PLANT; IPOMOEA; LIKELIHOOD FUNCTIONS; MARKOV CHAINS; MODELS, GENETIC; MONTE CARLO METHOD; PHYLOGENY;

CONVOLVULACEAE; EMBRYOPHYTA; IPOMOEA;

EID: 0036804707     PISSN: 10635157     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10635150290102401     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Akaike, H. 1974. A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Trans. Auto. Cont. AC-19:716-723.
2. Austin, D. F., and Z. Huaman. 1996. A synopsis of Ipomoea (Convolvulaceae) in the Americas. Taxon 45: 3-38.
3. Buckley, T. R. 2002. Model misspecification and probabilistic tests of topology: Evidence from empirical data sets. Syst. Biol. 51:509-523.
4. Buckley, T. R., P. Arensburger, C. Simon, and G. K. Chambers. 2002. Combined data, Bayesian phylogenetics, and the origin of the New Zealand cicada genera. Syst. Biol. 51:4-18.
5. Cunningham, C. W. 1997. Is congruence between data partitions a reliable predictor of phylogenetic accuracy? Empirically testing an iterative procedure for choosing among phylogenetic methods. Syst. Biol. 46:464-478.
6. Cunningham, C. W., H. Zhu, and D. M. Hillis. 1998. Best-fit maximum-likelihood models for phylogenetic inference: Empirical tests with known phylogenies. Evolution 52:978-987.
7. Dry, I., A. Smith, A. Edwards, M. Bhattacharyya, P. Dunn, and C. Martin. 1992. Characterization of cDNAs encoding two isoforms of granule-bound starch synthase which show differential expression in developing storage organs of pea and potato. Plant J. 2:193-202.
8. Gaut, B. S., and P. O. Lewis. 1995. Success of maximum likelihood phylogeny inference in the four-taxon case. Mol. Biol. Evol. 12:152-162.
9. Gelman, A., J. Carlin, H. Stern, and D. Rubin. 1995. Bayesian Data Analysis. Chapman and Hall, London.
10. Hallier, H. 1893. Versuch einer natuerlichen Gliederung der Convolvulaceen auf morphologischer und anatomischer Grunlage. Bot. Jahr. Syst. 16:453-591.
11. Hasting, W. 1970. Monte Carlo sampling methods using Markov chains and their applications. Biometrika 57:97-109.
12. Huelsenbeck, J. P. 1995. Performance of phylogenetic methods in simulation. Syst. Biol. 44:17-48.
13. Huelsenbeck, J. P. 2002. Testing a covariotide model of DNA substitution. Mol. Biol. Evol. 19:698-707.
14. Huelsenbeck, J. P., and J. P. Bollback. 2001. Empirical and hierarchical Bayesian estimation of ancestral states. Syst. Biol. 50:351-366.
15. Huelsenbeck, J. P., and D. M. Hillis. 1993. Success of phylogenetic methods in the four-taxon case. Syst. Biol. 42:247-264.
16. Huelsenbeck, J. P., and F. Ronquist. 2001. MrBayes: Bayesian Inference of Phylogeny. Department of Biology, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York.
17. Huelsenbeck, J. P., F. Ronquist, R. Nielson, and J. P. Bollback. 2001. Bayesian inference of phylogeny and its impact on evolutionary biology. Science 294:2310-2314.
18. Karol, K. G., R. M. McCourt, M. T. Cimino, and C. F. Delwiche. 2001. The closest living relative to land plants. Science 294:2351-2353.
19. Larget, B., and D. L. Simon. 1999. Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithms in the Bayesian analysis of phylogenetic trees. Mol. Biol. Evol. 16:750-759.
20. LeacheÌ A. D., and T. W. Reeder. 2002. Molecular systematics of the eastern fence lizard (Sceloporous undulatus): A comparison of parsimony, likelihood, and Bayesian approaches. Syst. Biol. 51:44-68.
21. Lewis, P. O. 2001. Phylogenetic systematics turns over a new leaf. Trends Ecol. Evol. 16:30-37.
22. Li, S., D. K. Pearl, and H. Doss. 2000. Phylogenetic tree reconstruction using Markov chain Monte Carlo. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 95:493-508.
23. Lutzoni, F., M. Pagel, and V. Reeb. 2001. Major fungal lineages are derived from lichen symbiotic ancestors. Nature 411:937-940.
24. Lyons-Weiler, J., G. A. Hoelzer, and R. J. Tausch. 1998. Optimal outgroup analysis. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 64:493-511.
25. Maddison, D. R. 1991. The discovery and importance of multiple islands of most parsimonious trees. Syst. Zool. 40:315-328.
26. Manos, P. S., R. E. Miller, and P. Wilkin. 2001. Phylogenetic analysis of Ipomoea, Argyreia, Stictocardia, and Turbina suggests a generalized model of morphological evolution in morning glories. Syst. Bot. 26:585-602.
27. Mau, B., M. A. Newton, and B. Larget. 1999. Bayesian phylogenetic inference via Markov chain Monte Carlo methods. Biometrics 55:1-12.
28. McDonald, J. A. 1991. Origin and diversity of Mexican Convolvulaceae. Anal. Inst. Biol. Univ. Nac. Auton. Mex. Ser. Bot. 62:65-82.
29. Meeuse, A. D. J. 1957. The South African Convolvulaceae. Bothalia 6:641-792.
30. Metropolis, N., A. Rosenbluth, M. Rosenbluth, A. Teller, and E. Teller. 1953. Equation of state calculations by fast computing machines. J. Chem. Phys. 21:1087-1092.
31. Miller, R. E., M. D. Rausher, and P. S. Manos. 1999. Phylogenetic systematics of Ipomoea (Convolvulaceae) based on ITS and waxy sequences. Syst. Bot. 24:209-227.
32. Posada, D., and K. A. Crandall. 1998. Modeltest: Testing the model of DNA substitution. Bioinformatics 14:817-818.
33. Rannala, B., and Z. Yang. 1996. Probability distribution of molecular evolutionary trees: A new method of phylogenetic inference. J. Mol. Evol. 43: 304-311.
34. Simon, D., and B. Larget. 2000. Bayesian Analysis in Molecular Biology and Evolution (BAMBE), Version 2.03 beta. Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
35. Stefanovic, S., L. Kruger, and R. Olmstead. 1999. Monophyly of Convolvulaceae and circumscription of their major lineages based on cpDNA sequences. XVI International Botanical Congress. Abstract page 382.
36. Swofford, D. L. 2000. PAUP*: Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony (* and other Methods), Version 4.0. Sinauer, Sunderland, Massachusetts.
37. Tierney, L. 1994. Markov chains for exploring posterior distributions. Ann. Stat. 22:1701-1762.
38. Verdcourt, B. 1963. Convolvulaceae. Pages 1-161 in Flora of Tropical East Africa (C. E. Hubbard and E. Milne-Redhead, eds.). Whitefriars Press, London.
39. Wang, Z., Z. Wu, Y. Xing, F. Zheng, X. Guo, W. Zang, and M. Hong. 1995. The amylose content in rice endosperm is related to the post-transcriptional regulation of the waxy gene. Plant J. 7:613-622.
40. Whittingham, L. A., B. Slikas, D. W. Winkler, and F. H. Sheldon. 2002. Phylogeny of the tree swallow genus, Tachycineta (Aves: Hirudinidae), by Bayesian analysis of mitochondrial DNA sequences. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 22:430-441.
41. Wilkin, P. 1999. A morphological cladistic analysis of Ipomoea (Convolvulaceae). Kew Bull. 54:853-876.
42. Williams, P. L., and W. M. Fitch. 1989. Finding the weighted minimal change in a given tree. Pages 453-470 in Nobel Symposium on the Hierarchy of Life (B. Fernholme, K. Bremer, and H. Jornval, eds.). Elsevier, Cambridge, U.K.
43. Williams, P. L., and W. M. Fitch. 1990. Phylogeny determination using the dynamically weighted parsimony method. Methods Enzymol. 183:615-626.