Supertrees Are a Necessary Not-So-Evil: A Comment on Gatesy et al.

Systematic Biology

Volumn 52, Issue 5, 2003, Pages 724-729

  Bininda Emonds, Olaf R P ^a   Jones, Kate E ^b   Price, Samantha A ^b   Grenyer, Richard ^c   Cardillo, Marcel ^c   Habib, Michael ^b   Purvis, Andy ^c   Gittleman, John L ^b  

^a TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA   (United States)

^c IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPARATIVE STUDY; META ANALYSIS; PHYLOGENY; REVIEW;

META-ANALYSIS; PHYLOGENY;

EID: 0242410900     PISSN: 10635157     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10635150390235647     Document Type: Review

References (49)

1. ARNASON, U., AND A. GULLBERG. 1994. Relationships of baleen whales established by cytochrome b gene sequence comparison. Nature 367:726-728.
2. ARNASON, U., AND A. GULLBERG. 1996. Cytochrome b nucleotide sequences and the classification of five primary lineages of extant cetaceans. Mol. Biol. Evol. 13:407-417.
3. BARRETT, M., M. J. DONOGHUE, AND E. SOBER. 1991. Against consensus. Syst. Zool. 40:486-493.
4. BININDA-EMONDS, O. R. P. 2000. Factors influencing phylogenetic inference: A case study using the mammalian carnivores. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 16:113-126.
5. BININDA-EMONDS, O. R. P. in press. The phylogenetic position of the giant panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca): A historical consensus through supertree analysis. In Pandas: Biology and conservation (D. G. Lindburg and K. Baragona, eds.). Univ. California Press, Berkeley.
6. BININDA-EMONDS, O. R. P., J. L. GITTLEMAN, AND A. PURVIS. 1999. Building large trees by combining phylogenetic information: A complete phylogeny of the extant Carnivora (Mammalia). Biol. Rev. 74:143-175.
7. BININDA-EMONDS, O. R. P., J. L. GITTLEMAN, AND M. A. STEEL. 2002. The (super)tree of life: Procedures, problems, and prospects. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 33:265-289.
8. BININDA-EMONDS, O. R. P., K. E. JONES, S. A. PRICE, M. CARDILLO, R. GRENYER, AND A. PURVIS. in press. Garbage in, garbage out: Data issues in supertree construction. In Phylogenetic supertrees: Combining information to reveal the tree of life (O. R. P. Bininda-Emonds, ed.). Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
9. BININDA-EMONDS, O. R. P., AND M. J. SANDERSON. 2001. Assessment of the accuracy of matrix representation with parsimony supertree construction. Syst. Biol. 50:565-579.
10. DAUBIN, V., M. GOUY, AND G. PERRIÈRE. 2001. Bacterial molecular phylogeny using supertree approach. Genome Informatics 12:155-164.
11. DE JONG, W. W. 1998. Molecules remodel the mammalian tree. Trends Ecol. Evol. 13:270-275.
12. DE QUEIROZ, A., M. J. DONOGHUE, AND J. KIM. 1995. Separate versus combined analysis of phylogenetic evidence. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 26:657-681.
13. DOYLE, J. J. 1992. Gene trees and species trees: Molecular systematics as one-character taxonomy. Syst. Bot. 17:144-163.
14. FARRIS, J. S. 1983. The logical basis of phylogenetic analysis. Pages 7-36 in Advances in cladistics (N. I. Platnick and V. A. Funk, eds.). Columbia Univ. Press, New York.
15. GATESY, J., C. MATTHEE, R. DESALLE, AND C. HAYASHI. 2002. Resolution of a supertree/supermatrix paradox. Syst. Biol. 51:652-664.
16. JENNER, R. A. 2001. Bilaterian phylogeny and uncritical recycling of morphological data sets. Syst. Biol. 50:730-742.
17. JONES, K. E., A. PURVIS, A. MACLARNON, O. R. P. BININDA-EMONDS, AND N. B. SIMMONS. 2002. A phylogenetic supertree of the bats (Mammalia: Chiroptera). Biol. Rev. 77:223-259.
18. KÄLLERSJÖ, M., V. A. ALBERT, AND J. S. FARRIS. 1999. Homoplasy increases phylogenetic structure. Cladistics 15:91-93.
19. KENNEDY, M., AND R. D. M. PAGE. 2002. Seabird supertrees: Combining partial estimates of procellariiform phylogeny. Auk 119:88-108.
20. KLUGE, A. G. 1989. A concern for evidence and a phylogenetic hypothesis of relationships among Epicrates (Boidae, Serpentes). Syst. Zool. 38:7-25.
21. LEDJE, C., AND U. ARNASON. 1996. Phylogenetic analyses of complete cytochrome b genes of the order Carnivora with particular emphasis on the Caniformia. J. Mol. Evol. 42:135-144.
22. LEE, D.-C., AND H. N. BRYANT. 1999. A reconsideration of the coding of inapplicable characters: Assumptions and problems. Cladistics 15:373-378.
23. LEVASSEUR, C., AND F.-J. LAPOINTE. 2001. War and peace in phylogenetics: A rejoinder on total evidence and consensus. Syst. Biol. 50:881-891.
24. LEWIS, P. O. 2001. A likelihood approach to estimating phylogeny from discrete morphological character data. Syst. Biol. 50:913-925.
25. LIU, F.-G. R., M. M. MIYAMOTO, N. P. FREIRE, P. Q. ONG, M. R. TENNANT, T. S. YOUNG, AND K. F. GUGEL. 2001. Molecular and morphological supertrees for eutherian (placental) mammals. Science 291:1786-1789.
26. MADDISON, W. P. 1997. Gene trees in species trees. Syst. Biol. 46:523-536.
27. MESSENGER, S. L., AND J. A. MCGUIRE. 1998. Morphology, molecules, and the phylogenetics of cetaceans. Syst. Biol. 47:90-124.
28. MICKEVICH, M. F. 1978. Taxonomic congruence. Syst. Zool. 27:143-158.
29. MILINKOVITCH, M. C., R. G. LEDUC, J. ADACHI, F. FARNIR, M. GEORGES, AND M. HASEGAWA. 1996. Effects of character weighting and species sampling on phylogeny reconstruction: A case study based on DNA sequence data in cetaceans. Genetics 144:1817-1833.
30. MILINKOVITCH, M. C., A. MEYER, AND J. R. POWELL. 1994. Phylogeny of all major groups of cetaceans based on DNA sequences from three mitochondrial genes. Mol. Biol. Evol. 11:939-948.
31. MILINKOVITCH, M. C., G. ORTI, AND A. MEYER. 1995. Novel phylogeny of whales revisited but not revised. Mol. Biol. Evol. 12:518-520.
32. MIYAMOTO, M. M. 1985. Consensus cladograms and general classifications. Cladistics 1:186-189.
33. NOVACEK, M. J. 1992. Mammalian phylogeny: Shaking the tree. Nature 356:121-125.
34. NOVACEK, M. J. 2001. Mammalian phylogeny: Genes and supertrees. Curr. Biol. 11:R573-R575.
35. PAGE, R. D. M., AND M. A. CHARLESTON. 1999. Comments on Allard and Carpenter (1996), or the "aquatic ape" hypothesis revisited. Cladistics 15:73-74.
36. PENNY, D., AND M. D. HENDY. 1986. Estimating the reliability of evolutionary trees. Mol. Biol. Evol. 3:403-417.
37. PISANI, D., A. M. YATES, M. C. LANGER, AND M. J. BENTON. 2002. A genus-level supertree of the Dinosauria. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 269:915-921.
38. PURVIS, A. 1995a. A composite estimate of primate phylogeny. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 348:405-421.
39. PURVIS, A. 1995b. A modification to Baum and Ragan's method for combining phylogenetic trees. Syst. Biol. 44:251-255.
40. RODRIGO, A. G. 1993. A comment on Baum's method for combining phylogenetic trees. Taxon 42:631-636.
41. RODRIGO, A. G. 1996. On combining cladograms. Taxon 45:267-274.
42. SANDERSON, M. J., AND J. KIM. 2000. Parametric phylogenetics? Syst. Biol. 49:817-829.
43. SANDERSON, M. J., A. PURVIS, AND C. HENZE. 1998. Phylogenetic supertrees: Assembling the trees of life. Trends Ecol. Evol. 13:105-109.
44. SELUJA, G. A., A. FARMER, M. MCLEOD, C. HARGER, AND P. A. SCHAD. 1999. Establishing a method of vector contamination identification in database sequences. Bioinformatics 15:106-110.
45. SLOWINSKI, J. B., AND R. D. M. PAGE. 1999. How should species phylogenies be inferred from sequence data? Syst. Biol. 48:814-825.
46. SPRINGER, M. S., AND W. W. DE JONG. 2001. Phylogenetics. Which mammalian supertree to bark up? Science 291:1709-1711.
47. STONER, C. J., O. R. P. BININDA-EMONDS, AND T. M. CARO. 2003. The adaptive significance of coloration in lagomorphs. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 79:309-328.
48. STRONG, E. E., AND D. LIPSCOMB. 1999. Character coding and inapplicable data. Cladistics 15:363-371.
49. WILSON, D. E., AND D. M. REEDER (eds.). 1993. Mammal species of the world: A taxonomic and geographic reference. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.