The (super)tree of life: Procedures, problems, and prospects

Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics

Volumn 33, Issue , 2002, Pages 265-289

  Bininda Emonds, Olaf R P ^a,b   Gittleman, John L ^c   Steel, Mike A ^d  

^a TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

^b LEIDEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^c UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF CANTERBURY   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

Algorithms; Biodiversity; Consensus techniques; Macroevolution; Matrix representation; Total evidence; Trees

Indexed keywords

EVOLUTION; MOLECULAR ANALYSIS; PHYLOGENETICS;

DINOSAURIA; MAGNOLIOPHYTA; MAMMALIA;

EID: 0036931408     PISSN: 00664162     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.33.010802.150511     Document Type: Review

References (122)

1. Aho AV, Sagiv Y, Szymanski TG, Ullman JD. 1981. Inferring a tree from lowest common ancestors with an application to the optimization of relational expressions. SIAM J. Comput. 10:405-21
2. Arrow KJ. 1963. Social Choice and Individual Values. New York: Wiley. 124 pp.
3. Barton RA. 1996. Neocortex size and behavioural ecology in primates. Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B 263:173-77
4. Baum BR. 1992. Combining trees as a way of combining data sets for phylogenetic inference, and the desirability of combining gene trees. Taxon 41:3-10
5. Baum BR, Ragan MA. 1993. Reply to A.G. Rodrigo's "A comment on Baum's method for combining phylogenetic trees." Taxon 42:637-40
6. Bininda-Emonds ORP. 2000. Factors influencing phylogenetic inference: A case study using the mammalian carnivores. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 16:113-26
7. Bininda-Emonds ORP. 2003. The phylogenetic position of the giant panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca): A historical consensus through supertree analysis. In Biology and Conservation of the Giant Panda, ed. DG Lindburg, K Baragona. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press. In press
8. Bininda-Emonds ORP, Brady SG, Sanderson MJ, Kim J. 2000. Scaling of accuracy in extremely large phylogenetic trees. In Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing 2001, ed. RB Altman, AK Dunker, L Hunter, K Lauderdale, TE Klein, pp. 547-58. River Edge, NJ: World Scientific
9. Bininda-Emonds ORP, Bryant HN. 1998. Properties of matrix representation with parsimony analyses. Syst. Biol. 47:497-508
10. Bininda-Emonds ORP, Bryant HN, Russell AP. 1998. Supraspecific taxa as terminals in cladistic analysis: Implicit assumptions of monophyly and a comparison of methods. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 64:101-33
11. Bininda-Emonds ORP, Gittleman JL. 2000. Are pinnipeds functionally different from fissiped carnivores? The importance of phylogenetic comparative analyses. Evolution 54:1011-23
12. Bininda-Emonds ORP, Gittleman JL, Purvis A. 1999. Building large trees by combining phylogenetic information: A complete phylogeny of the extant Carnivora (Mammalia). Biol. Rev. 74:143-75
13. Bininda-Emonds ORP, Sanderson MJ. 2001. Assessment of the accuracy of matrix representation with parsimony supertree construction. Syst. Biol. 50:565-79
14. Böcker S, Bryant D, Dress AWM, Steel MA. 2000. Algorithmic aspects of tree amalgamation. J. Algorithms 37:522-37
15. Brooks DR. 1981. Hennig's parasitological method: A proposed solution. Syst. Zool. 30:229-49
16. Bush RM, Fitch WM, Bender CA, Cox NJ. 1999. Positive selection on the H3 hemagglutinin gene of human influenza virus A. Mol. Biol. Evol. 16:1457-65
17. Chase MW, Soltis DE, Olmstead RG, Morgan D, Les DH, et al. 1993. Phylogenetics of seed plants: An analysis of nucleotide sequences from the plastid gene rbcL. Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard. 80:528-80
18. Chen D, Eulenstein O, Fernández-Baca D, Sanderson MJ. 2001. Supertrees by Flipping. Tech. Rep. TR02-01. Iowa State Univ., Dept. Comput. Sci.
19. Constantinescu M, Sankoff D. 1995. An efficient algorithm for supertrees. J. Classif. 12:101-12
20. Cummings MP, Otto SP, Wakeley J. 1995. Sampling properties of DNA sequence data in phylogenetic analysis. Mol. Biol. Evol. 12:814-22
21. Deaner RO, Nunn CL. 1999. How quickly do brains catch up with bodies? A comparative method for detecting evolutionary lag. Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B 266:687-94
22. Donoghue MJ, Doyle JA, Gauthier J, Kluge AG, Rowe T. 1989. The importance of fossils in phylogeny reconstruction. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 20:431-60
23. Doyle JJ. 1992. Gene trees and species trees: Molecular systematics as one-character taxonomy. Syst. Bot. 17:144-63
24. Felsenstein J. 1978a. Cases in which parsimony or compatibility methods will be positively misleading. Syst. Zool. 27:401-10
25. Felsenstein J. 1978b. The number of evolutionary trees. Syst. Zool. 27:27-33
26. Felsenstein J. 1985. Phylogenies and the comparative method. Am. Nat. 125:1-15
27. Felsenstein J. 2001. The troubled growth of statistical phylogenetics. Syst. Biol. 50:465-67
28. Gatesy J, Matthee C, DeSalle R, Hayashi C. 2002. Resolution of a supertree/supermatrix paradox. Syst. Biol. 51:652-64
29. Gittleman JL. 1989. The comparative approach in ethology: Aims and limitations. In Perspectives in Ethology, ed. PPG Bateson, PH Klopfer, pp. 55-83. New York: Plenum
30. Gittleman JL, Kot M. 1990. Adaptation: Statistics and a null model for estimating phylogenetic effects. Syst. Zool. 39:227-41
31. Gittleman JL, Purvis A. 1998. Body size and species-richness in carnivores and primates. Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B 265:113-19
32. Gordon AD. 1986. Consensus supertrees: The synthesis of rooted trees containing overlapping sets of labeled leaves. J. Classif. 3:31-39
33. Harvey PH, Pagel MD. 1991. The Comparative Method in Evolutionary Biology. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press. 239 pp.
34. Harvey PH, Rambaut A. 2000. Comparative analyses for adaptive radiations. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London Ser. B 355:1599-605
35. Heard SB, Mooers AØ. 2000. Phylogenetically patterned speciation rates and extinction risks change the loss of evolutionary history during extinctions. Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B 267:613-20
36. Hillis DM. 1996. Inferring complex phylogenies. Nature 383:130-31
37. Hillis DM. 1998. Taxonomic sampling, phylogenetic accuracy, and investigator bias. Syst. Biol. 47:3-8
38. Huelsenbeck JP. 1995. Performance of phylogenetic methods in simulation. Syst. Biol. 44:17-48
39. Hull DL. 1980. Science as a Process. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
40. Johnson CN. 1998. Species extinction and the relationship between distribution and abundance. Nature 394:272-74
41. Jones KE, Gittleman JL, Purvis A. 2002a. Bat extinction risk. J. Anita. Ecol. Submitted
42. Jones KE, Purvis A, MacLarnon A, Bininda-Emonds ORP, Simmons NB. 2002b. A phylogenetic supertree of the bats (Mammalia: Chiroptera). Biol. Rev. 77:223-59
43. Källersjö M, Farris JS, Chase MW, Bremer B, Fay MF, et al. 1998. Simultaneous parsimony jackknife analysis of 2538 rbcL DNA sequences reveals support for major clades of green plants, land plants, seed plants and flowering plants. Plant. Syst. Evol. 213:259-87
44. Kennedy M, Page RDM. 2002. Seabird supertrees: Combining partial estimates of Procellafiiform phylogeny. The Auk 119:88-108
45. Kirsch JAW, Lapointe F-J, Springer MS. 1997. DNA-hybridisation studies of marsupials and their implications for metatherian classification. Aust. J. Zool. 45:211-80
46. Kluge AG. 1989. A concern for evidence and a phylogenetic hypothesis of relationships among Epicrates (Boidae, Serpentes). Syst. Zool. 38:7-25
47. Lande R. 1979. Quantitative genetic analysis of multivariate evolution, applied to brain:Body size allometry. Evolution 33:402-16
48. Lanyon SM. 1993. Phylogenetic frameworks: Towards a firmer foundation for the comparative approach. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 49:45-61
49. Lapointe F-J, Cucumel G. 1997. The average consensus procedure: Combination of weighted trees containing identical or overlapping sets of taxa. Syst. Biol. 46:306-12
50. Lecointre G, Philippe H, Vân Lê HL, Le Guyader H. 1993. Species sampling has a major impact on phylogenetic inference. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2:205-24
51. Linder HP. 2000. Vicariance, climate change, anatomy and phylogeny of Restionaceae. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 134:159-77
52. Liu F-GR, Miyamoto MM, Freire NP, Ong PQ, Tennant MR, et al. 2001. Molecular and morphological supertrees for eutherian (placental) mammals. Science 291:1786-89
53. Losos JB. 1999. Uncertainty in the reconstruction of ancestral character states and limitations on the use of phylogenetic comparative methods. Anim. Behav. 58:1319-24
54. Maddison WP. 1989. Reconstructing character evolution on polytomous cladograms. Cladistics 5:365-77
55. Madsen O, Scally M, Douady CJ, Kao DJ, DeBry RW, et al. 2001. Parallel adaptive radiations in two major clades of placental mammals. Nature 409:610-14
56. Magallón S, Sanderson MJ. 2001. Absolute diversification rates in angiosperm clades. Evolution 55:1762-80
57. Martins EP. 1996. Phylogenies, spatial autoregression, and the comparative method: A computer simulation test. Evolution 50:1750-65
58. McKinney ML. 1997. Extinction vulnerability and selectivity: Combining ecological and paleontological views. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 28:495-516
59. McMorris FR. 1985. Axioms for consensus functions on undirected phylogenetic trees. Math. Biosci. 74:17-21
60. Mickevich MF. 1978. Taxonomic congruence. Syst. Zool. 27:143-58
61. Mooers AØ, Heard SJ. 1997. Inferring evolutionary process from phylogenetic tree shape. Q. Rev. Biol. 72:31-54
62. Murphy WJ, Eizirik E, Johnson WE, Zhang YP, Ryder OA, O'Brien SJ. 2001a. Molecular phylogenetics and the origins of placental mammals. Nature 409:614-18
63. Murphy WJ, Eizirik E, O'Brien SJ, Madsen O, Scally M, et al. 2001 b. Resolution of the early placental mammal radiation using Bayesian phylogenetics. Science 294:2348-51
64. Nee S, May RM. 1997. Extinction and the loss of evolutionary history. Science 278:692-95
65. Nee S, Mooers AØ, Harvey PH. 1992. Tempo and mode of evolution revealed from molecular phylogenies. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 89:8322-26
66. Neumann DA. 1983. Faithful consensus methods for n-trees. Math. Biosci. 63:271-87
67. Ng MP, Wormald NC. 1996. Reconstruction of rooted trees from subtrees. Discrete Appl. Math. 69:19-31
68. Novacek MJ. 1992. Mammalian phylogeny: Shaking the tree. Nature 356:121-25
69. Novacek MJ. 2001. Mammalian phylogeny: Genes and supertrees. Curr. Biol. 11:R573-75
70. Nunn CL, Barton RA. 2000. Allometric slopes and independent contrasts: A comparative test of Kleiber's law in primate ranging patterns. Am. Nat. 156:519-33
71. Nunn CL, Gittleman JL, Antonovics J. 2000. Promiscuity and the primate immune system. Science 290:1168-70
72. O'Brien SJ, Eizirik E, Murphy WJ. 2001. Genomics. On choosing mammalian genomes for sequencing. Science 292:2264-66
73. O'Brien SJ, Nash WG, Wildt DE, Bush ME, Benveniste RE. 1985. A molecular solution to the riddle of the giant panda's phylogeny. Nature 317:140-44
74. Pagel MD, Harvey PH. 1988. The taxon level problem in mammalian brain size evolution: Facts and artifacts. Am. Nat. 132:344-59
75. Paradis E. 1998. Detecting shifts in diversification rates without fossils. Am. Nat. 152:176-88
76. Pisani D, Yates AM, Langer MC, Benton MJ. 2002. A genus-level supertree of the Dinosauria. Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B. 269:915-21
77. Ponstein J. 1966. Matrices in Graph and Network Theory. Assen, The Netherlands: Van Gorcum
78. Price T. 1997. Correlated evolution and independent contrasts. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London Ser. B 352:519-29
79. Purvis A. 1995a. A composite estimate of primate phylogeny. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London Ser. B 348:405-21
80. Purvis A. 1995b. A modification to Baum and Ragan's method for combining phylogenetic trees. Syst. Biol. 44:251-55
81. Purvis A. 1996. Using interspecies phylogenies to test macroevolutionary hypotheses. In New Uses for New Phylogenies, ed. PH Harvey, AJ Leigh Brown, J Maynard Smith, S Nee, pp. 153-68. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press
82. Purvis A, Agapow P-M, Gittleman JL, Mace GM. 2000a. Nonrandom extinction and the loss of evolutionary history. Science 288:328-30
83. Purvis A, Gittleman JL, Cowlishaw G, Mace GM. 2000b. Predicting extinction risk in declining species. Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B 267:1947-52
84. Purvis A, Gittleman JL, Luh H-K. 1994. Truth or consequences: Effects of phylogenetic accuracy on two comparative methods. J. Theor. Biol. 167:293-300
85. Purvis A, Mace GM, Gittleman JL. 2001. Extinction risk in carnivores: A phylogenetic approach. In Carnivore Conservation, ed. JL Gittleman, S Funk, D Macdonald, RK Wayne, pp. 11-34. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press
86. Purvis A, Nee S, Harvey PH. 1995. Macroevolutionary inferences from primate phylogeny. Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B 260:329-33
87. Purvis A, Webster AJ, Agapow P-M, Jones KE, Isaac NJG. 2003. Primate life histories and phylogeny. In Primate Life History, ed. PM Keppeler, M Pereira. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. In press
88. Pybus OG, Harvey PH. 2000. Testing macro-evolutionary models using incomplete molecular phylogenies. Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B 267:2267-72
89. Ragan MA. 1992. Phylogenetic inference based on matrix representation of trees. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 1:53-58
90. Rodrigo AG. 1993. A comment on Baum's method for combining phylogenetic trees. Taxon 42:631-66
91. Rodrigo AG. 1996. On combining cladograms. Taxon 45:267-74
92. Ronquist F. 1996. Matrix representation of trees, redundancy, and weighting. Syst. Biol. 45:247-53
93. Salamin N, Hodkinson TR, Savolainen V. 2002. Building supertrees: An empirical assessment using the grass family (Poaceae). Syst. Biol. 51:134-50
94. Sanderson MJ, Kim J. 2000. Parametric phylogenetics? Syst. Biol. 49:817-29
95. Sanderson MJ, Purvis A, Henze C. 1998. Phylogenetic supertrees: Assembling the trees of life. Trends Ecol. Evol. 13:105-9
96. Sanderson MJ, Shaffer HB. 2002. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 33:49-72
97. Savolainen V, Chase MW, Hoot SB, Morton CM, Soltis DE, et al. 2000. Phylogenetics of flowering plants based on combined analysis of plastid atpB and rbcL gene sequences. Syst. Biol. 49:306-62
98. Sechrest W, Brooks TM, da Fonseca GAB, Konstant WR, Mittermeier RA, et al. 2002. Hotspots and the conservation of evolutionary history. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99:2067-71
99. Semple C. 2002. Reconstructing minimal rooted trees. Discrete Appl. Math. In press
100. Semple C, Steel M. 2000. A supertree method for rooted trees. Discrete Appl. Math. 105:147-58
101. Semple C, Steel M. 2002. Tree reconstruction from multi-state characters. Adv. Appl. Math. 28:169-84
102. Simberloff D, Hecht KL, McCoy ED, Connor EF. 1981. There have been no statistical tests of cladistic biogeographical hypotheses. In Vicariance Biogeography: A Critique, ed. G Nelson, DE Rosen, pp. 40-63. New York: Columbia Univ. Press
103. Slowinski JB, Page RDM. 1999. How should species phylogenies be inferred from sequence data? Syst. Biol. 48:814-25
104. Soltis PS, Soltis DE, Chase MW. 1999. Angiosperm phylogeny inferred from multiple genes as a tool for comparative biology. Nature 402:402-4
105. Springer MS, de Jong WW. 2001. Phylogenetics. Which mammalian supertree to bark up? Science 291:1709-11
106. Steel M. 1992. The complexity of reconstructing trees from qualitative characters and sub-trees. J. Classif. 9:91-116
107. Steel M, Dress AWM, Böcker S. 2000. Simple but fundamental limitations on supertree and consensus tree methods. Syst. Biol. 49:363-68
108. Stoner CJ, Bininda-Emonds ORP, Caro TM. 2003. The adaptive significance of colouration in lagomorphs. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. In press
109. Swofford DL. 2002. PAUP*. Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony (z.ast;and Other Methods). Version 4. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer
110. Thorley JL. 2000. Cladistic Information, Leaf Stability and Supertree Construction. PhD thesis, Univ. Bristol, UK
111. Thorley JL, Page RD. 2000. RadCon: Phylogenetic tree comparison and consensus. Bioinformatics 16:486-87
112. Van de Peer Y, de Wachter R. 1997. Evolutionary relationships among the eukaryotic crown taxa taking into account site-to-site rate variation in 18S rRNA. J. Mol. Evol. 45:619-30
113. Vane-Wright RI, Humphries CJ, Williams PH. 1991. What to protect? Systematics and the agony of choice. Biol. Conserv. 55:235-54
114. Vázquez DP, Gittleman JL. 1998. Biodiversity conservation: Does phylogeny matter? Curr. Biol. 8:R379-81
115. Wayne RK, Van Valkenburgh B, O'Brien SJ. 1991. Molecular distance and divergence time in carnivores and primates. Mol. Biol. Evol. 8:297-319
116. Webb CO. 2000. Exploring the phylogenetic structure of ecological communities: An example for rain forest trees. Am. Nat. 156:145-55
117. Weiblen GD, Oyama RK, Donoghue MJ. 2000. Phylogenetic analysis of dioecy in monocotyledons. Am. Nat. 155:46-58
118. Wiens JJ. 1998. Does adding characters with missing data increase or decrease phylogenetic accuracy? Syst. Biol. 47:625-40
119. Wilkinson M, Thorley JL. 1998. Reduced supertrees. Trends Ecol. Evol. 13:283
120. Wilkinson M, Thorley JL, Littlewood DTJ, Bray RA. 2001. Towards a phylogenetic supertree of Platyhelminthes? In Interrelationships of the Platyhelminthes, ed. DTJ Littlewood, RA Bray, pp. 292-301. London: Taylor & Francis
121. Willson SJ. 2001. An error-correcting map for quartets can improve the signals for phylogenetic trees. Mol. Biol. Evol. 18:344-51
122. Wojciechowski MF, Sanderson MJ, Steele KP, Liston A. 2000. Molecular phylogeny of the "temperate herbaceous tribes" of papilionoid legumes: A supertree approach. In Advances in Legume Systematics, ed. P Herendeen, A Bruneau, pp. 277-98 (full tree available at: http://loco.la.asu.edu/plantbiology/faculty/wojciechowski/htm). Kew, UK: Royal Botanic Gardens