Semi-strict supertrees

Cladistics

Volumn 18, Issue 5, 2002, Pages 514-525

  Goloboff, Pablo A ^a   Pol, Diego ^b  

^a UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL DE TUCUMÁN   (Argentina)

^b DIVISION OF INVERTEBRATE ZOOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLADISTICS; METHODOLOGY; TREE;

EID: 0036821385     PISSN: 07483007     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0748-3007(02)00117-2     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Adams, E., 1972. Consensus techniques and the comparison of taxonomic trees. Syst. Zool. 21, 390-397.
2. Baum, B., 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., Ragan, M., 1993. A reply to A.G. Rodrigo's 'A comment on Baum's method for combining phylogcnetic trees'. Taxon 42, 637-640.
4. Bininda-Emonds, O., Bryant, H., 1998. Properties of matrix representation with parsimony analyses. Syst. Biol. 47, 497-508.
5. Bininda-Emonds, O., Gittleman, J., Purvis, A., 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., Sanderson, M., 2001. Assessment of the accuracy of matrix representation with parsimony analysis supertree construction. Syst. Biol. 50, 565-579.
7. Bremer, K., 1990. Combinable component consensus. Cladistics 6, 369-372.
8. Chase, M., Soltis, D., Olmstead, R., Morgan, D., Les, D., Mishler, B., Duvall, M., Price, R., Hills, H., Qiu, Y.-L., Kron, K., Rettig, J., Conti, E., Palmer, J., Manhart, J., Sytsma, K., Michaels, H., Kress, W., Karol, K., Clark, W., Hedren, M., Gaut, B., Jansen, R., Kim, K.-J., Smith, J., Furnier, G., Strauss, S., Xiang, Q.-Y., Plunkett, G., Soltis, P., Swensen, S., Willimas, S., Gadek, P., Quinn, C., Eguiarte, L., Golenberg, E., Leran, G., Graham, S., Barret, S., Dayanandan, S., Albert, V., 1993. Phylogenetics of seed plants: An analysis of nucleotide sequences from the plastid gene rbcL. Ann. Miss. Bot. Garden 80, 528-580.
9. Estabrook, G., Strauch, J., Fiala, K., 1977. An application of compatibility analysis to the Blackiths data on orthopteroid insects. Syst. Zool. 26, 269-276.
10. Goloboff, P., 1996. Nona: a tree-searching program. Program and documentation, distributed by the author, San Miguel de Tucumán.
11. Goloboff, P., 1999. Analyzing large data sets in reasonable times: solutions for composite optima. Cladistics 15, 415-428.
12. Goloboff, P., J. Farris, and K. Nixon. 1999. T.N.T.: Tree Analysis Using New Technology. Available at www.cladistics.org.
13. Gordon, A., 1986. Consensus supertrees: the synthesis of rooted trees containing overlapping sets of labelled leaves. J. Classif. 3, 335-348.
14. Lanyon, S., 1993. Phylogenetic frameworks: Towards a firmer foundation for the comparative approach. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 49, 45-61.
15. Morand, S., Muller-Graf, C.D., 2000. Muscles or testes? Comparative evidence for sexual competition among dioecious blood parasites (Schistosomatidae) of vertebrates. Parasitology 120, 45-56.
16. Nixon, K., Carpenter, J., 1996. On consensus, collapsibility, and clade concordance. Cladistics 12, 305-321.
17. Pisani, D., Wilkinson, M., 2002. Matrix representation with parsimony, taxonomic congruence, and total evidence. Syst. Biol. 51, 151-155.
18. Purvis, A., 1995. A modification to Baum and Ragan's method for combining phylogenetic trees. Syst. Biol. 44, 251-255.
19. Ragan, M., 1992. Phylogenetic inference based on matrix representation of trees. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 1, 51-58.
20. Ronquist, F., 1996. Matrix representation of trees, redundancy, and weighting. Syst. Biol. 45, 247-253.
21. Sanderson, M., Purvis, A., Henze, C., 1998. Phylogenetic supertrees: assembling the trees of life. Trends Ecol. Evol. 13, 105-109.
22. Semple, C., Steel, M., 2000. A supertree method for rooted trees. Discrete Appl. Math. 105, 147-158.
23. Steel, M., 1992. The complexity of reconstructing trees from qualitative characters and subtrees. J. Classif. 9, 91-116.
24. Steel, M., Dress, A., Bocker, S., 2000. Simple but fundamental limitations on supertree and consensus methods. Syst. Biol. 49, 363-368.
25. Swofford, D., 1998. PAUP*: Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony (* and other methods). Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Mass.