Phylogenetics of artificial manuscripts

Journal of Theoretical Biology

Volumn 227, Issue 4, 2004, Pages 503-511

  Spencer, Matthew ^a   Davidson, Elizabeth A ^a   Barbrook, Adrian C ^a   Howe, Christopher J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Experimental phylogenetics; Manuscript evolution; Natural language; Stemmatics; Textual criticism

Indexed keywords

PHYLOGENETICS;

ARTICLE; EVOLUTION; PHYLOGENY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; WRITING;

LANGUAGE; LINGUISTICS; MANUSCRIPTS; PHYLOGENY;

EID: 1642339584     PISSN: 00225193     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2003.11.022     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. Barbrook A.C., Howe C.J., Blake N., Robinson P. The phylogeny of The Canterbury Tales. Nature. 394:1998;839.
2. Bennett C.H., Li M., Ma B. Chain letters and evolutionary histories. Sci. Am. 288:2003;64-69.
3. Bryant D., Moulton V. NeighborNet. an agglomerative method for the construction of planar phylogenetic networks Guigo R., Gusfield D. WABI 2002, Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Vol. 2452:2002;375-391 Springer, Berlin.
4. Buneman P. Filiation of manuscripts. Hodson F.R., Kendall D.G., Tautu P. Mathematics in the Archaeological and Historical Sciences. 1971;387-395 Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.
5. Cameron H.D. The upside-down cladogram. problems in manuscript affiliation Hoenigswald H.M., Wiener L.F. Biological Metaphor and Cladistic Classification: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. 1987;227-242 Frances Pinter, London.
6. Cartlidge N. The Canterbury Tales and cladistics. Neuphilol. Mitt. 102:2001;135-150.
7. Collard M., Shennan S. Processes of culture change in prehistory. a case study from the European Neolithic Renfrew C., Boyle K. Archaeogenetics: DNA and the Population Prehistory of Europe. 2000;89-97 McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge.
8. Crawley M.J. GLIM for Ecologists. 1993;Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford.
9. Dress A., Huson D., Moulton V. Analyzing and visualizing sequence and distance data using SPLITSTREE. Discrete Appl. Math. 71:1996;95-109.
10. Felsenstein J. Evolutionary trees from DNA sequences. a maximum likelihood approach J. Mol. Evol. 17:1981;368-376.
11. Felsenstein J. Confidence limits on phylogenies. an approach using the bootstrap Evolution. 39:1985;783-791.
12. Finney, T.J., 2002. MSS: a manuscript copying simulation. Online: http://purl.org/TC/downloads/simulation.
13. Forster P., Toth A. Toward a phylogenetic chronology of ancient Gaulish, Celtic, and Indo-European. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 100:2003;9079-9084.
14. Forster P., Toth A., Bandelt H.-J. Evolutionary network analysis of word lists. visualising the relationships between Alpine Romance Languages J. Quant. Ling. 5:1998;174-187.
15. Gjessing H.K., Pierce R.H. A stochastic model for the presence/absence of readings in Niorstigningar Saga. World Archaeol. 26:1994;268-294.
16. Gray R.D., Jordan F.M. Language trees support the express-train sequence of Austronesian expansion. Nature. 405:2000;1052-1055.
17. Hanna R. The application of thought to textual criticism in all modes - with apologies to A.E. Housman. Stud. Bibliogr. 53:2000;163-172.
18. Hillis D.M., Bull J.J., White M.E., Badgett M.R., Molineux I.J. Experimental phylogenetics. generation of a known phylogeny Science. 255:1992;589-592.
19. Hoelzer G.A., Melnick D.J. Patterns of speciation and limits to phylogenetic resolution. Trends Ecol. Evol. 9:1994;104-107.
20. Holden C.J. Bantu language trees reflect the spread of farming across sub-Saharan Africa. a maximum-parsimony analysis Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B. 269:2002;793-799.
21. Howe C.J., Barbrook A.C., Spencer M., Robinson P., Bordalejo B., Mooney L.R. Manuscript evolution. Trends Genet. 17:2001;147-152.
22. Huelsenbeck J.P., Ronquist F., Nielsen R., Bollback J.P. Bayesian inference of phylogeny and its impact on evolutionary biology. Science. 294:2001;2310-2314.
23. Huson D.H. SplitsTree. analyzing and visualizing evolutionary data Bioinformatics. 14:1998;68-73.
24. Jones A. The properties of a stemma. relating the manuscripts in two texts from The Canterbury Tales Parergon. 18:2001;35-53.
25. Lee A.R. Numerical taxonomy revisited. John Griffith, cladistic analysis and St. Augustine's Quaestiones in Heptateuchem Stud. Patrist. 20:1989;24-32.
26. Lewis P.O. A likelihood approach to estimating phylogeny from discrete morphological character data. Syst. Biol. 50:2001;913-925.
27. Li M., Badger J.H., Chen X., Kwong S., Kearney P., Zhang H. An information-based sequence distance and its application to whole mitochondrial genome phylogeny. Bioinformatics. 17:2001;149-154.
28. Maas P. Textual Criticism. 1958;Oxford University Press, Oxford.
29. Maddison D.R., Swofford D.L., Maddison W.P. NEXUS. an extensible file format for systematic information Syst. Biol. 46:1997;590-621.
30. McMahon A., McMahon R. Finding families. quantitative methods in language classification T. Philol. Soc. 101:2003;7-55.
31. Metzger B.M. The Text of the New Testament. Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration:1992;Oxford University Press, New York.
32. Mooney L.R., Barbrook A.C., Howe C.J., Spencer M. Stemmatic analysis of Lydgate's "Kings of England" a test case for the application of software developed for evolutionary biology to manuscript stemmatics Rev. Hist. Textes. 31:2001;275-297.
33. O'Brien M.J., Lyman R.L. Evolutionary archaeology. current status and future prospects Evol. Anthropology. 11:2002;26-36.
34. O'Brien M.J., Darwent J., Lyman R.L. Cladistics is useful for reconstructing archaeological phylogenies. palaeoindian points from the Southeastern United States J. Archaeol. Sci. 28:2001;1115-1136.
35. O'Hara R., Robinson P. Computer-assisted methods of stemmatic analysis. Blake N., Robinson P. The Canterbury Tales Project Occasional Papers. Vol. 1:1993;53-74 Office for Humanities Communication Publications, London.
36. Page R.D.M., Holmes E.C. Molecular Evolution. A Phylogenetic Approach:1998;Blackwell Science, Oxford.
37. Pelli D.G., Farell B., Moore D.C. The remarkable inefficiency of word recognition. Nature. 423:2003;752-756.
38. Penny D., Hendy M.D. The use of tree comparison metrics. System. Zool. 34:1985;75-82.
39. Posada D., Crandall K.A. Evaluation of methods for detecting recombination from DNA sequences. computer simulations Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 98:2001;13757-13762.
40. Posada D., Crandall K.A. Intraspecific gene genealogies. trees grafting into networks Trends Ecol. Evol. 16:2001;37-45.
41. Robinson P. A stemmatic analysis of the fifteenth-century witnesses to The Wife of Bath's Prologue. Blake N., Robinson P. The Canterbury Tales Project: Occasional Papers. Vol. II:1997;69-132 Office for Humanities Communication Publications, London.
42. Robinson P.M.W. Collate. Interactive Collation of Large Textual Traditions:1994;Oxford University Centre for Humanities Computing, Oxford.
43. Robinson P.M.W. New directions in critical editing. Sutherland K. Electronic Text: Investigations in Method and Theory. 1997;145-171 Clarendon Press, Oxford.
44. Robinson P.M.W., O'Hara R.J. Cladistic analysis of an Old Norse manuscript tradition. Hockey S., Ide N. Research in Humanities Computing. Vol. 4:1996;115-137 Oxford University Press, Oxford.
45. Robson-Brown K. Cladistics as a tool in comparative analysis. Lee P.C. Comparative Primate Socioecology. 1999;23-43 Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
46. Saitou N., Nei M. The neighbor-joining method. a new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees Mol. Biol. Evol. 4:1987;406-425.
47. Salemans B.J.P. Cladistics or the resurrection of the method of Lachmann. on building the stemma of Yvain van Reenen P., van Mulken M. Studies in Stemmatology. 1996;3-70 John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam.
48. Salemans B.J.P. Type-2 Variations. A Necessary Evil? Stemmatology Meeting:2000;Free University, Amsterdam.
49. Slowinski J.B. Molecular polytomies. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 19:2001;114-120.
50. Sokal R.R., Rohlf F.J. Biometry. 1995;W.H. Freeman & Co. New York.
51. Spencer M., Howe C.J. Estimating distances between manuscripts based on copying errors. Lit. Ling. Comp. 16:2001;467-484.
52. Spencer M., Howe C.J. How accurate were scribes? A mathematical model. Lit. Ling. Comp. 17:2002;311-322.
53. Spencer, M., Howe, C.J., submitted. Collating texts using progressive multiple alignment. Comput. Humanities.
54. Spencer, M., Wachtel, K., Howe, C.J., 2002. The Greek vorlage of the Syra Harclensis: a comparative study on method in exploring textual genealogy. TC: a Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism [ http://purl.org/TC ] 7.
55. Spencer M., Bordalejo B., Wang L.-S., Barbrook A.C., Mooney L.R., Robinson P., Warnow T., Howe C.J. Analyzing the order of items in manuscripts of The Canterbury Tales. Comput. Humanities. 37:2003;97-109.
56. Spencer, M., Bordalejo, B., Robinson, P., Howe, C.J., 2004a. How reliable is a stemma? An analysis of Chaucer's Miller's Tale. Lit. Ling. Comp., in press.
57. Spencer, M., Mooney, L.R., Barbrook, A.C., Bordalejo, B., Howe, C.J., Robinson, P., 2004b. The effects of weighting kinds of variants. In: van Reenen, P., den Hollander, A. (Eds.), Studies in Stemmatology II. John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam.
58. Stolz M. New philology and new phylogeny. aspects of a critical electronic edition of Wolfram's Parzival Lit. Ling. Comp. 18:2003;139-150.
59. Studier J.A., Keppler K.J. A note on the neighbor-joining algorithm of Saitou and Nei. Mol. Biol. Evol. 5:1988;729-731.
60. Swofford D.L. PAUP* Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony (*and other methods). 2001;Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA.
61. Tehrani J., Collard M. Investigating cultural evolution through biological phylogenetic analyses of Turkmen textiles. J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 21:2002;443-463.
62. von Eschenbach W. Parzival. 1980;Penguin Books, London.
63. Wakely J. Substitution rate variation among sites in hypervariable region 1 of human mitochondrial DNA. J. Mol. Evol. 37:1993;613-623.
64. Weitzman M.P. The evolution of manuscript traditions. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. A. 150:1987;287-308.