Partitioned likelihood support and the evaluation of data set conflict

Systematic Biology

Volumn 52, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 15-22

  Lee, M S Y ^a,b   Hugall, A F ^a,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE   (Australia)

^b SOUTH AUSTRALIAN MUSEUM   (Australia)

^c UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

Author keywords

Artiodactyls; Cetaceans; Kishino Hasegawa test; Partitioned branch support; Partitioned likelihood support; Shimodaira Hasegawa test; Templeton test

Indexed keywords

ANIMALIA; ARTIODACTYLA; CETACEA;

EID: 0037291466     PISSN: 10635157     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10635150390132650     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. BAKER, R., AND R. DESALLE. 1997. Multiple sources of character information and the phylogeny of Hawaiian drosophilids. Syst. Biol. 46:654-673.
2. BAKER, R. H., G. S. WILKINSON, AND R. DESALLE. 2001. Phylogenetic utility of different types of molecular data used to infer evolutionary relationships among stalk-eyed flies (Diopsidae). Syst. Biol. 50:87-105.
3. BAKER, R. H., X. YU, AND R. DESALLE. 1998. Assessing the relative contribution of molecular and morphological characters in simultaneous analysis trees. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 9:427-436.
4. BREMER, K. 1988. The limits of amino acid sequence data in angiosperm phylogenetic reconstruction. Evolution 42:795-803.
5. BREMER, K. 1994. Branch support and tree stability. Cladistics 10:295-304.
6. BUCKLEY, T. R. 2002. Model misspecification and probabilistic tests of topology: Evidence from empirical data sets. Syst. Biol. 51:509-523.
7. DESALLE, R., AND A. BROWER. 1997. Process partitions, congruence, and the independence of characters: Inferring relationships among closely related Hawaiian Drosophila from multiple gene regions. Syst. Biol. 46:751-764.
8. ERIKSSON, T. 2001. AutoCladeS, version 0.2. Computer program available at http://www.bergianska.se/personal/TorstenE/.
9. FARRIS, J. S., M. KÄLLERSJÖ, A. G. KLUGE, AND C. BULT. 1994. Testing significance of incongruence. Cladistics 10:315-319.
10. GATESY, J., AND P. ARCTANDER. 2000. Hidden morphological support for the phylogenetic placement of Pseudoryx nghetinhensis with bovine bovids: A combined analysis of gross anatomical evidence and DNA sequences from five genes. Syst. Biol. 49:515-538.
11. GATESY, J., P. O'GRADY, AND R. H. BAKER. 1999. Corroboration among data sets in simultaneous analysis: Hidden support for phylogenetic relationships among higher-level artiodactyl taxa. Cladistics 15:271-313.
12. GOLDMAN, N. 1993. Statistical test of models of DNA substitution. J. Mol. Evol. 36:182-198.
13. GOLDMAN, N., J. P. ANDERSON, AND A. G. RODRIGO. 2000. Likelihood-based tests of topologies in phylogenetics. Syst. Biol. 49:652-670.
14. HOLM, S. 1979. A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scand. J. Stat. 6:65-70.
15. HUELSENBECK, J. P., D. M. HILLIS, AND R. JONES. 1996a. Parametric bootstrapping in molecular phylogenetics: Applications and performance. Pages 19-45 in Molecular zoology: Advances, strategies and protocols (J. D. Ferraris and S. R. Palumbi, eds.). Wiley & Sons, New York.
16. HUELSENBECK, J. P., D. M. HILLIS, AND R. NIELSEN. 1996b. A likelihood-ratio test of monophyly. Syst. Biol. 45:546-558.
17. JAMIESON, B. G. M., S. TILLIER, A. TILLIER, J.-L. JUSTINE, E. LING, S. JAMES, K. MCDONALD, AND A. F. HUGALL. 2002. Phylogeny of the Megascolecidae and Crassiclitellata (Oligochaeta, Annelida): Combined versus partitioned analysis using nuclear (28S) and mitochondrial (12S, 16S) rDNA. Zoosystema 24:707-734.
18. KISHINO, H., AND M. HASEGAWA. 1989. Evaluation of the maximum likelihood estimate of the evolutionary tree topologies from DNA sequence data, and the branching order of Hominoidea. J. Mol. Evol. 29:170-179.
19. LAMBKIN, C. L. 2000. Systematics and evolution of Australian exoprosopine flies (Diptera: Bombyliidae: Anthracinae) based on molecules, morphology and colour patterns. Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. Queensland, Brisbane.
20. LAMBKIN, C. L., M. S. Y. LEE, S. WINTERTON, AND D. K. YEATES. 2002. Partitioned branch support and the problem of multiple trees. Cladistics 18:436-444.
21. LARSON, A. R. 1994. The comparison of morphological and molecular data in phylogenetic systematics. Pages 371-390 in Molecular ecology and evolution: Approaches and applications. (B. Schierwater, B. Steit, G. P. Wagner, and R. DeSalle, eds.) Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel.
22. LEE, M. S. Y. 2000. Tree robustness and clade significance. Syst. Biol. 49:829-836.
23. MACEY, J. R., J. A. SCHULTE II, A. LARSON, B. S. TUNIYEV, N. ORLOV, AND T. J. PAPENFUSS. 1999. Molecular phylogenetics, tRNA evolution and historical biogeographyin anguid lizards and related taxonomic families. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 12:250-272.
24. NAYLOR, G. J. P., AND D. C. ADAMS. 2001. Are fossil data really at odds with the molecular data? Morphological evidence for Cetartiodactyla phylogeny reexamined. Syst. Biol. 50:444-453.
25. O'GRADY, P. M., J. B. CLARK, AND M. G. KIDWELL. 1998. Phylogeny of the Drosophila saltans species group based on combined analysis of nuclear and mitochondrial DNA sequences. Mol. Biol. Evol. 15:656-664.
26. O'LEARY, M. A. 1999. Parsimony analysis of total evidence from extinct and extant taxa and the cetacean-artiodactyl question (Mammalia, Ungulata). Cladistics 15:315-330.
27. O'LEARY, M. A., AND J. H. GEISLER. 1999. The position of Cetacea within Mammalia: Phylogenetic analysis of morphological data from extinct and extant taxa. Syst. Biol. 48:455-490.
28. POSASA, D., AND K. A. CRANDALL. 2001. Selecting the best-fit model of nucleotide substitution. Syst. Biol. 50:580-601.
29. REMSEN, J., AND R. DESALLE. 1998. Character congruence of multiple data partitions and the origin of the Hawaiin Drosophilidae. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 9:225-235.
30. RICE, W. R. 1989. Analyzing tables of statistical tests. Evolution 43:223-225.
31. SHIMODAIRA, H. 2002. An approximately unbiased test of phylogenetic tree selection. Syst. Biol. 51:492-508.
32. SHIMODAIRA, H., AND M. HASEGAWA. 1999. Multiple comparisons of log-likelihoods with applications to phylogenetic inference. Mol. Biol. Evol. 16:1114-1116.
33. STRIMMER, K., AND A. RAMBAUT. 2001. Inferring confidence sets of possibly misspecified gene trees. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 269:137-142.
34. SWOFFORD, D. L. 2000. PAUP*: Phylogenetic analysis using parsimony (*and other methods), version 4. Sinauer, Sunderland, Massachusetts.
35. TAKAHASHI, K., AND M. NEI. 2000. Efficiencies of fast algorithms of phylogenetic inference under the criteria of maximum parsimony, minimum evolution, and maximum likelihood when a large number of sequences are used. Mol. Biol. Evol. 17:1251-1258.
36. TEMPLETON, A. R. 1983. Phylogenetic inference from restriction site endonuclease cleavage site maps with particular reference to the humans and apes. Evolution 37:221-244.
37. WHITLOCK, B. A., AND D. A. BAUM. 1999. Phylogeny of cacao (Theobroma cacao L., Sterculiaceae) and its wild relatives based on sequences of the nuclear-encoded gene VICILIN. Syst. Bot. 24:128-138.
38. WIENS, J. J. 1998. Combining data sets with different phylogenetic histories. Syst. Biol. 47:568-581.
39. WILGENBUSH, J., AND K. DE QUEIROZ. 2000. Phylogenetic relationships among phrynosomatid sand lizards inferred from mitochondrial DNA sequences generated by heterogenous evolutionary processes. Syst. Biol. 49:592-612.
40. YANG, Z. 1997. How often do wrong models produce better phylogenies. Mol. Biol. Evol. 14:105-108.
41. YANG, Z. 1999. PAML: Phylogenetic analysis by maximum likelihood, version 2.0. University College, London, U.K.