Congruence versus phylogenetic accuracy: Revisiting the incongruence length difference test

Systematic Biology

Volumn 53, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 81-89

  Hipp, Andrew L ^a   Hall, Jocelyn C ^b   Sytsma, Kenneth J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

^b HARVARD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; CLASSIFICATION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; GENETICS; METHODOLOGY; PHYLOGENY; PROSIMIAN; REVIEW; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

ANIMALS; CLASSIFICATION; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; LORISIDAE; MODELS, GENETIC; PHYLOGENY; RESEARCH DESIGN;

ANIMALIA; STREPSIRHINI;

EID: 1642356002     PISSN: 10635157     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10635150490264752     Document Type: Review

References (38)

1. Avise, J. C. 2000. Phylogeography: The history and formation of species. Harvard University Press. Cambridge, Massachusetts.
2. Barker, F. K., and F. M. Lutzoni. 2002. The utility of the incongruence length difference test. Syst. Biol. 51:625-637.
3. Baum, D. A., R. Small, and J. F. Wendel. 1998. Biogeography and floral evolution of Baobabs (Adansonia, Bombacaceae) as inferred from multiple data sets. Syst. Biol. 47:181-207.
4. Buckley, T. R., C. Simon, H. Shimodaira, and G. K. Chambers. 2001. Evaluating hypotheses on the origin and evolution of the New Zealand alpine cicadas (Maoricicada) using multiple-comparison tests of tree topology. Mol. Biol. Evol. 18:223-234.
5. Buckley, T. R., P. Arensburger, C. Simon, and G. K. Chambers. 2002. Combined data, Bayesian phylogenetics, and the origin of the New Zealand cicada genera. Syst. Biol. 51:4-18.
6. Bull, J. J., J. P. Huelsenbeck, C. W. Cunningham, D. L. Swofford, and P. J. Waddell. 1993. Partitioning and combining data in phylogenetic analysis. Syst. Biol. 42:384-397.
7. Cunningham, C. W. 1997a. Is congruence between data partitions a reliable predictor of phylogenetic accuracy? Empirically testing an iterative procedure for choosing among phylogenetic methods. Syst. Biol. 46:464-478.
8. Cunningham, C. W. 1997b. Can three incongruence tests predict when data should be combined? Mol. Biol. Evol. 14:733-740.
9. Darlu, P., and G. Lecointre. 2002. When does the incongruence length difference test fail? Mol. Biol. Evol. 19:432.
10. Dolphin, K., R. Belshaw, D. L. C. Orme, and D. L. J. Quicke. 2000. Noise and incongruence: Interpreting results of the incongruence length difference test. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 17:401-406.
11. Dowton, M., and A. D. Austin. 2002. Increased congruence does not necessarily indicate increased phylogenetic accuracy: The behavior of the incongruence length difference test in mixed-model analyses. Syst. Biol. 51:19-31.
12. Dumolin-Lapègue, S., B. Demesure, S. Fineschi, V. Le Corre, and R. J. Petit. 1997. Phylogeographic structure of white oaks throughout the European continent. Genetics 146:1475-1487.
13. Farris, J. D., M. Källersjö, A. G. Kluge, and C. Bult. 1994. Testing significance of incongruence. Cladistics 10:315-319.
14. Farris, J. D., M. Källersjö, A. G. Kluge, and C. Bult. 1995. Constructing a significance test for incongruence. Syst. Biol. 44:570-572.
15. Felsenstein, J. 1978. Cases in which parsimony and compatibility methods will be positively misleading. Syst. Zool. 27:401-410.
16. Goldman, N., J. P. Anderson, and A. G. Rodrigo. 2000. Likelihood-based tests of topologies in phylogenetics. Syst. Biol. 49:652-670.
17. Hendy, M. D., and D. Penny. 1989. A framework for the quantitative study of evolutionary trees. Syst. Zool. 38:297-309.
18. Huelsenbeck, J. P., J. J. Bull, and C. W. Cunningham. 1996. Combining data in phylogenetic analysis. Trends Ecol. Evol. 11:152-158.
19. Huelsenbeck, J. P., and F. Ronquist. 2001. MrBayes: Bayesian inference of phylogeny. Biometrics 17:754-755.
20. Johnson, L. A., and D. E. Soltis. 1998. Assessing congruence: Empirical examples from molecular data. Pages 297-348 in Molecular systematics of plants II: DNA sequencing (D. E. Soltis, P. S. Soltis, and J. J. Doyle, eds). Kluwer, Norwell, Massachusetts.
21. Kishino, H., and M. Hasegawa. 1989. Evaluation of the maximum likelihood estimates of the evolutionary tree topologies from sequence data, and the branching order in Hominoidea. J. Mol. Evol. 29:170-179.
22. Larson, A. 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. Streit, G. P. Wagner, and R. DeSalle, eds.). Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel, Switzerland.
23. Lewis, P. O. 2001. A likelihood approach to estimating phylogeny from discrete morphological character data. Syst. Biol. 50:913-925.
24. Maddison, W. P. 1997. Gene trees in species trees. Syst. Biol. 46:523-536.
25. Mason-Gamer, R. J., and E. A. Kellogg. 1996. Testing for phylogenetic conflict among molecular data sets in the tribe Triticeae (Gramineae). Syst. Biol. 45:524-545.
26. McKinnon, G. E., D. A. Steane, B. M. Potts, and R. E. Vaillancourt. 1999. Incongruence between chloroplast and species phylogenies in Eucalyptus subgenus Monocalyptus (Myrtaceae). Am. J. Bot. 86:1038-1046.
27. Rieseberg, L. H. 1997. Hybrid origins of plant species. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 28:359-389.
28. Rodrigo, A. G., M. Kelly-Borges, P. R. Bergquist, and P. L. Bergquist. 1993. A randomization test of the null hypothesis that two cladograms are sample estimates of a parametric phylogenetic tree. N.Z. J. Bot. 31:257-268.
29. Shimodaira, H. 2002. An approximately unbiased test of phylogenetic tree selection. Syst. Biol. 51:492-508.
30. Shimodaira, H., and M. Hasegawa. 1999. Multiple comparisons of log-likelihoods with applications to phylogenetic inference. Mol. Biol. Evol. 16:1114-1116.
31. Swofford, D. L. 1991. When are phylogeny estimates from molecular and morphological data incongrugent? Pages 295-333 in Phylogenetic analysis of DNA sequences (M. M. Miyamoto and J. Cracraft, eds.). Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, U.K.
32. Swofford, D. L. 1998. PAUP*: Phylogenetic analysis using parsimony (*and other methods), version 4. Sinauer, Sunderland, Massachusetts.
33. Swofford, D. L., P. J. Waddell, J. P. Huelsenbeck, P. G. Foster, P. O. Lewis, and J. S. Rogers. 2001. Bias in phylogenetic estimation and its relevance to the choice between parsimony and likelihood methods. Syst. Biol. 50:525-539.
34. Sytsma, K. J. 1990. DNA and morphology: Inference of plant phylogeny. Trends Ecol. Evol. 5:104-110.
35. Templeton, A. R. 1983. Phylogenetic inference from restriction endonuclease cleavage site maps with particular reference to the evolution of humans and the apes. Evolution 37:221-244.
36. Thornton, J. W., and R. DeSalle. 2000. A new method to localize and test the significance of incongruence: Detecting domain shuffling in the nuclear receptor superfamily. Syst. Biol. 49:183-201.
37. Yoder, A. D. 1994. Relative position of the Cheirogaleidae in strepsirhine phylogeny: A comparison of morphological and molecular methods and results. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 94:25-46.
38. Yoder, A. D., J. A. Irwin, and B. A. Payseur. 2001. Failure of the ILD to determine data combinability for slow loris phylogeny. Syst. Biol. 50:408-424.