Component coding, three-item coding, and consensus methods

Systematic Biology

Volumn 52, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 255-259

  Williams, David M ^a   Humphries, Christopher J ^a  

^a DEPARTMENT OF LIFE SCIENCES   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0037617885     PISSN: 10635157     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10635150390192753     Document Type: Review

References (42)

1. 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.
2. BAUM, B. R., AND M. A. RAGAN. 1993. Reply to A. G. Rodrigo's 'A comment on Baum's method for combining trees.' Taxon 42:637-640.
3. BININDA-EMONDS, O. R. P., AND H. N. BRYANT. 1998. Properties of matrix representation with parsimony analysis. Syst. Biol. 47:497-508.
4. BROOKS, D. R. 1990. Parsimony analysis in historical biogeography and coevolution: Methodological and theoretical update. Syst. Zool. 39:14-30.
5. BROOKS, D. R. 1996. Explanations of homoplasy at different levels of biological organization. Pages 3-36 in Homoplasy. The recurrence of similarity in evolution (M. J. Sanderson and L. Hufford, eds.). Academic Press, San Diego.
6. DOYLE, J. J. 1992. Gene trees and species trees: Molecular systematics as one-character taxonomy. Syst. Bot. 17:144-163.
7. EBACH, M. C., AND K. J. McNAMARA. 2002. A systematic revision of the family Harpetidae (Trilobita). Rec. West. Aust. Mus. 21:235-267.
8. FARRIS, J. S. 1973. On comparing the shapes of taxonomic trees. Syst. Zool. 22:50-54.
9. FARRIS, J. S., A. G. KLUGE, AND M. J. ECKHARDT. 1970. A numerical approach to phylogenetic systematics. Syst. Zool. 19:172-191.
10. GUIGÓ, R., I. MUCHNIK, AND T. F. SMITH. 1996. Reconstruction of ancient molecular phylogeny. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 6:189-213.
11. HUGOT, J.-P., AND J.-F. COSSON. 2000. Constructing general area cladograms by matrix representation with parsimony: A western Palearctic example. Belg. J. Entomol. 2:77-86.
12. KLUGE, A. G. 1993. Three-taxon transformation in phylogenetic inference: Ambiguity and distortion as regards explanatory power. Cladistics 9:246-259.
13. NELSON, G. J. 1979. Cladistic analysis and synthesis: Principles and definitions with a historical note on Adanson's "Families des Plantes" (1763-1764). Syst. Zool. 28:1-21.
14. NELSON, G. J. 1993. Reply. Cladistics 9:261-265.
15. NELSON, G. J. 1996. Nullius in Verba. J. Comp. Biol. 1:141-152.
16. NELSON, G. J., AND P. Y. LADIGES. 1991a. Standard assumptions for biogeographic analysis. Austr. Syst. Bot. 4:41-58.
17. NELSON, G. J., AND P. Y. LADIGES. 1991b. Three-area statements: Standard assumptions for biogeographic analysis. Syst. Zool. 40:470-485.
18. NELSON, G. J., AND P. Y. LADIGES. 1992a. Information content and fractional weight of three-taxon statements. Syst. Biol. 41:490-494.
19. NELSON, G. J., AND P. Y. LADIGES. 1992b. TAX: MSDOS program for cladistics. American Museum of Natural History, New York.
20. NELSON, G. J., AND P. Y. LADIGES. 1994. Three-item consensus: Empirical test of fractional weighting. Pages 193-209 in Models in phylogeny reconstruction (R. W. Scotland, D. J. Siebert, and D. M. Williams, eds.). Systematics Association Special Volume 52. Clarendon Press, Oxford, U.K.
21. NELSON, G. J., AND P. Y. LADIGES. 1996. Paralogy in cladistic biogeography and analysis of paralogy-free subtrees. Am. Mus. Novit. 3167:1-58.
22. NELSON, G. J., AND N. I. PLATNICK. 1980. Multiple branching in cladograms: Two interpretations. Syst. Zool. 29:86-91.
23. NELSON, G. J., AND N. I. PLATNICK. 1981. Systematics and biogeography: Cladistics and vicariance. Columbia Univ. Press, New York.
24. NELSON, G. J., AND N. I. PLATNICK. 1991. Three-taxon statements: A more precise use of parsimony? Cladistics 7:351-366.
25. NELSON, G. J., D. M. WILLIAMS, AND M. C. BEACH. 2003. A question of conflict: Three item and standard parsimony compared. Syst. Biodiv. 2.
26. PAGE, R. D. M. 1990. Component analysis: A valiant failure? Cladistics 6:119-136.
27. PAGE, R. D. M. 1993. Component for Windows. Software and manual. Natural History Museum, London.
28. PISANI, D., AND M. WILKINSON. 2002. Matrix representation with parsimony, taxonomic congruence, and total evidence. Syst. Biol. 51:151-155.
29. PLATNICK, N. I., C. J. HUMPHRIES, G. J. NELSON, AND D. M. WILLIAMS. 1996. Is Farris optimization perfect? Cladistics 12:243-252.
30. PURVIS, A. 1995. A modification to Baum and Ragan's method for combining phylogenetic trees. Syst. Biol. 44:251-255.
31. RAGAN, M. A. 1992a. Matrix representation in reconstructing phylogenetic relationships among the eukaryotes. BioSystems 28:47-55.
32. RAGAN, M. A. 1992b. Phylogenetic inference based on matrix representation of trees. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 1:53-58.
33. RONQUIST, F. 1996. Matrix representation of trees, redundancy, and weighting. Syst. Biol. 45:247-253.
34. SANDERSON, M. J., A. PURVIS, AND C. HENZE. 1998. Phylogenetic supertrees: Assembling the trees of life. Trends Evol. Ecol. 13:105-109.
35. SLOWINSKI, J. B., AND R. D. M. PAGE. 1999. How should species phylogenies be inferred from sequence data? Syst. Biol. 48:814-825.
36. SNEATH, P. H. A., AND R. R. SOKAL. 1973. Numerical taxonomy: The principles and practice of numerical classification. W. H. Freeman, San Francisco.
37. SOKAL, R. R., AND P. A. S. SNEATH. 1963. Principles of numerical taxonomy. W. H. Freeman, San Francisco.
38. WILEY, E. O. 1988. Vicariance biogeography. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 19:513-542.
39. WILKINSON, M. 1994. Common cladistic information and its consensus representation: Reduced Adams and reduced cladistic consensus trees and profiles. Syst. Biol. 43:343-368.
40. WILLIAMS, D. M. 1996. Fossil species of the diatom genus Tetracyclus (Bacillariophyta, 'ellipticus' species group): Morphology, interrelationships and the relevance of ontogeny. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B 351:1759-1782.
41. WILLIAMS, D. M. 2002. Parsimony and precision. Taxon 51:143-149.
42. WILLIAMS, D. M., AND D. J. SIEBERT. 2000. Characters, homology and three-item analysis. Pages 183-208 in Homology and systematics (R. W. Scotland and T. Pennington, eds.). Systematics Association Special Volume 58. Taylor and Francis, Philadelphia.