Molecular and morphological datasets have similar numbers of relevant phylogenetic characters

Taxon

Volumn 53, Issue 4, 2004, Pages 1019-1022

  Lee, Michael S Y ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE   (Australia)

^b SOUTH AUSTRALIAN MUSEUM   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

PHYLOGENETICS;

EID: 11244320366     PISSN: 00400262     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2307/4135567     Document Type: Short Survey

References (16)

1. Baker, R. H., Yu, X. & DeSalle, R. 1998. Assessing the relative contribution of molecular and morphological characters in simultaneous analysis trees. Molec. Phylog. Evol. 9: 427-436.
2. Bremer, K. 1988. The limits of amino acid sequence data in angiosperm phylogenetic reconstruction. Evolution 42: 795-803.
3. Farris, J. S., Källersjö, M. & de Laet, J. E. 2001. Branch lengths do not indicate support - even in maximum likelihood. Cladistics 17: 298-299.
4. Givnish, T. J. & Sytsma, K. J. 1997. Consistency, characters, and the likelihood of correct phylogenetic inference. Molec. Phylog. Evol. 1: 320-330.
5. Hillis, D. M. 1987. Molecular versus morphological approaches to systematics. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 18: 23-42.
6. Jenner, R. A. 2004. Accepting partnership by submission? Morphological phylogenetics in a molecular millenium. Syst. Biol. 53: 333-342.
7. Kress, W. J., Prince, L. M., Hahn, W. J. & Zimmer, E. A. 2001. Unravelling the evolutionary radiation of the families of the Zingiberales using morphological and molecular evidence. Syst. Biol. 50: 926-944.
8. Lambkin, C. L., Yeates, D. K. & Greathead, D. J. 2003. An evolutionary radiation of beeflies in semi-arid Australia: systematics of the Exoprosopini (Diptera: Bombyliidae). Invert. Syst. 17: 735-891.
9. Lee, M. S. Y. 2004. The molecularisation of taxonomy. Invert. Syst. 18: 1-6.
10. Lee, M. S. Y. & Scanlon, J. D. 2002. Snake phylogeny based on osteology, soft anatomy and behaviour. Biol. Rev. 77: 333-401.
11. Poe, S. & Wiens, J. J. 2000. Character selection and the methodology of morphological phylogenetics. Pp. 20-36 in: Wiens, J. J. (ed.), Phylogenetic Analysis of Morphologial Data. Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D.C.
12. Ruta, M., Coates, M. I. & Quicke, D. L. J. 2003. Early tetrapod relationships revisited. Biol. Rev. 78: 251-345.
13. Scotland, R. W., Olmstead, R. G. & Bennett, J. R. 2003. Phylogeny reconstruction: the role of morphology. Syst. Biol. 52: 539-548.
14. Swofford, D. L. 2000. PAUP*. Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony (*and Other Methods). Version 4. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts.
15. Wagner, G. P. (ed.). 2001. The Character Concept in Evolutionary Biology. Academic Press, San Diego.
16. Yeates, D. 1992. Why remove autapomorphies? Cladistics 8: 387-389.