The systematic component of phylogenetic error as a function of taxonomic sampling under parsimony

Systematic Biology

Volumn 54, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 432-440

  DeBry, Ronald W ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI   (United States)

Author keywords

Parsimony; Phylogenetic accuracy; Phylogenetic error; Taxon sampling

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLASSIFICATION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER SIMULATION; METHODOLOGY; MOLECULAR EVOLUTION; PHYLOGENY; REPRODUCIBILITY; SAMPLE SIZE;

CLASSIFICATION; COMPUTER SIMULATION; EVOLUTION, MOLECULAR; PHYLOGENY; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RESEARCH DESIGN; SAMPLE SIZE;

EID: 22844440801     PISSN: 10635157     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10635150590946745     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. DeBry, R. W. 1992. The consistency of several phylogeny-inference methods under varying evolutionary rates. Mol. Biol. Evol. 9:537-551.
2. Goldman, N. 1998. Phylogenetic information and experimental design in molecular systematics. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 265:1779-1786.
3. Graham, R. L., and L. R. Foulds. 1982. Unlikelihood that minimal phylogenies for a realistic biological study can be constructed in reasonable computational time. Math. Biosci. 60:133-142.
4. Graybeal, A. 1998. Is it better to add taxa or characters to a difficult phylogenetic problem? Syst. Biol. 47:9-17.
5. Hasegawa, M., H. Kishino, and T. Yano. 1985. Dating of the human-ape splitting by a molecular clock of mitochondrial DNA. J. Mol. Evol. 22:160-174.
6. Hillis, D. M. 1996. Inferring complex phylogenies. Nature 383:130-131.
7. Hillis, D. M. 1997. Are big trees indeed easy? Reply. Trends Ecol. Evol. 12:358.
8. Hillis, D. M. 1998. Taxonomic sampling, phylogenetic accuracy, and investigator bias. Syst. Biol. 47:3-8.
9. Hillis, D. M., J. P. Huelsenbeck, and D. L. Swofford. 1994. Hobgoblin of phylogenetics? Nature 369:363-364.
10. Hillis, D. M., D. D. Pollock, J. A. McGuire, and D. J. Zwickl. 2003. Is sparse taxon sampling a problem for phylogenetic inference? Syst. Biol. 52:124-126.
11. Holland, B. R., D. Penny, and M. D. Hendy. 2003. Outgroup misplacement and phylogenetic inaccuracy under a molecular clock - a simulation study. Syst. Biol. 52:229-238.
12. Kim, J. 1996. General inconsistency conditions for maximum parsimony: Effects of branch lengths and increasing numbers of taxa. Syst. Biol. 45:363-374.
13. Kim, J. 1998. Large-scale phylogenies and measuring the performance of phylogenetic estimators. Syst. Biol. 47:43-60.
14. Kumar, S., and S. R. Gadagkar. 2000. Efficiency of the neighbor-joining method in reconstructing deep and shallow evolutionary relationships in large phylogenies. J. Mol. Evol. 51:544-553.
15. Murphy, W. J., E. Eizirik, W. E. Johnson, Y. P. Zhang, O. A. Ryder, and S. J. O'Brien. 2001. Molecular phylogenetics and the origins of placental mammals. Nature 409:614-618.
16. Nee, S., R. M. May, and P. H. Harvey. 1994. The reconstructed evolutionary process. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 344:305-311.
17. Penny, D., and M. D. Hendy. 1985. The use of tree comparison metrics. Syst. Zool. 34:75-82.
18. Pollock, D. D., and W. J. Bruno. 2000. Assessing an unknown evolutionary process: Effect of increasing site-specific knowledge through taxon addition. Mol. Biol. Evol. 17:1854-1858.
19. Pollock, D. D., D. J. Zwickl, J. A. McGuire, and D. M. Hillis. 2002. Increased taxon sampling is advantageous for phylogenetic inference. Syst. Biol. 51:664-671.
20. Purvis, A., and D. L. J. Quicke. 1997. Are big trees indeed easy? Reply. Trends Ecol Evol. 12:357-358.
21. Rambaut, A. 2002. Phyl-O-Gen v1.1. Available at: http://evolve.zoo.ox.ac. uk/.
22. Robinson, D. F., and L. R. Foulds. 1981. Comparison of phylogenetic trees. Math. Biosci. 53:131-147.
23. Rosenberg, M. S., and S. Kumar. 2001. Incomplete taxon sampling is not a problem for phylogenetic inference. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 98:10751-10756.
24. Rosenberg, M. S., and S. Kumar. 2003. Taxon sampling, bioinformatics, and phylogenomics. Syst. Biol. 52:119-124.
25. Soltis, D. E., P. S. Soltis, D. L. Nickrent, L. A. Johnson, W. J. Hahn, S. B. Hoot, J. A. Sweere, R. K. Kuzoff, K. A. Kron, M. W. Chase, S. M. Swensen, E. A. Zimmer, S.-M. Chaw, L. J. Gillespie, W. J. Kress, and K. J, Sytsma. 1997. Angiosperm phylogeny inferred from 18S ribosomal DNA sequences. Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard. 84:1-49.
26. Strimmer, K., and A. von Haeseler. 1996. Accuracy of neighbor joining for n-taxon trees. Syst. Biol. 45:516-523.
27. Swofford, D. 2000. PAUP*: Phylogenetic analysis using parsimony (*and other methods). Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts.
28. Swofford, D. L., G. J. Olsen, P. J. Waddell, and D. M. Hillis. 1996. Phylogenetic Inference. Pages 407-514 in Molecular systematics (D. M. Hillis, C. Moritz, and B. K. Mable, eds.). Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts.
29. Yang, Z. 1997. PAML: A program package for phylogenetic analysis by maximum likelihood. CABIOS 13:555-556.
30. Yang, Z. and B. Rannala. 1997. Bayesian phylogenetic inference using DNA sequences: A Markov Chain Monte Carlo Method. Mol. Biol. Evol. 14:717-724.
31. Yang, Z. H. 1993. Maximum-likelihood-estimation of phylogeny from DNA-sequences when substitution rates differ over sites. Mol. Bio. and Evol. 10:1396-1401.
32. Yang, Z. H., and N. Goldman. 1997. Are big trees indeed easy? Trends Ecol. Evol. 12:357.
33. Zwickl, D. J., and D. M. Hillis. 2002. Increased taxon sampling greatly reduces phylogenetic error. Syst. Biol. 51:588-598.