Minority rule supertrees? MRP, compatibility, and minimum flip may display the least frequent groups

Cladistics

Volumn 21, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 282-294

  Goloboff, Pablo A ^a  

^a Facultad de Ciencias Naturales e Instituto M Lillo   (Argentina)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLADISTICS; TAXONOMY;

EID: 27544472307     PISSN: 07483007     EISSN: 10960031     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1096-0031.2005.00064.x     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Baum, B., 1992. Combining trees as a way of combining data sets for phylogenetic inference, and the desirability of combining gene trees. Taxon 41, 3-10.
2. Baum, B., Ragan, M., 1993. A reply to A.G. Rodrigo's. 'A comment on Baum's method for combining phylogenetic trees'. Taxon 42, 637-640.
3. Bininda-Emonds, O., 2003a. Novel versus unsupported clades: Assessing the qualitative support for clades in MRP supertrees. Syst. Biol. 52, 839-848.
4. Bininda-Emonds, O., 2003b. MRP supertree construction in the consensus setting. In: Janowitz, M., Lapointe, F.-J., McMorris, F.R., Mirkin, B., Roberts, F.S. (Eds) DIMACS Series in Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science. Bioconsensus. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, Vol. 61, pp. 231-242.
5. Bininda-Emonds, O., 2004a. Trees versus characters and the supertree/supermatrix 'paradox'. Syst. Biol. 53, 356-359.
6. Bininda-Emonds, O., 2004b. The evolution of supertrees. Trends. Ecol. Evol. 19, 315-322.
7. Bininda-Emonds, O., Bryant, H., 1998. Properties of matrix representation with parsimony analyses. Syst. Biol. 47, 497-508.
8. Bininda-Emonds, O., Gittleman, J., Purvis, A., 1999. Building large trees by combining phylogenetic information: a complete phylogeny of the extant Carnivora (Mammalia). Biol. Rev. 74, 143-175.
9. Bininda-Emonds, O., Gittleman, J., Steel, M., 2002. The (super) tree of life: procedures, problems, and prospects. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 33, 265-289.
10. Chen, D., Diao, L., Eulenstein, O., Fernández-Baca, D., Sanderson, M., 2003. Flipping: a supertree construction method. In: Janowitz, M., Lapointe, F., McMorris, F., Mirkin, B., Roberts, F. (Eds). DIMACS Series in Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science, Vol. 61, Bioconsensus. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, pp. 135-160.
11. De Laet, J., in press. Parsimony and the problem of inapplicables in comparative data. In: Albert, V. (Ed.), Parsimony, Phylogeny, and Genomics. Oxford University Press.
12. Eulenstein, O., Chen, D., Burleigh, G., Fernández-Baca, D., Sanderson, M., 2004. Performance of flip supertree construction with a heuristic algorithm. Syst. Biol. 53, 299-308.
13. Farris, J., 1983. The logical basis of phylogenetic analysis. In: Platnick, N., Funk, V. (Eds.), Advances in Cladistics, Vol. 2. Columbia University Press, New York, pp. 7-36.
14. Farris, J., Albert, V., Källersjö, M., Lipscomb, D., Kluge, A., 1996. Parsimony jackknifing outperforms neighbor-joining. Cladistics, 12, 99-124.
15. Felsenstein, J., 1993. Phylip, Version 3.5c. Department of Genetics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
16. Gatesy, J., Baker, R., Hayashi, C., 2004. Inconsistencies in arguments for the supertree approach: supermatrices versus supertrees of Crocodylia. Syst. Biol. 53, 342-355.
17. Goloboff, P., 1993a. Estimating character weights during tree search. Cladistics, 9, 83-91.
18. Goloboff, P., 1993b. Character optimization and calculation of tree lengths. Cladistics, 9, 433-436.
19. Goloboff, P., 1996. Methods for faster parsimony analysis. Cladistics, 12, 199-220.
20. Goloboff, P., 1999. Analyzing large data sets in reasonable times: solutions for composite optima. Cladistics, 15, 415-128.
21. Goloboff, P., 2000. Techniques for analysis of large data sets. In: De Salle, R., Wheeler, W., Giribet, G. (Eds.), Techniques in Molecular Systematics and Evolution. Birkhauser-Verlag, Basel, pp. 70-79.
22. Goloboff, P., Farris. J., Nixon, K., 2003. TNT: Tree Analysis using New Technology. Program and documentation, available at http://www.zmuc.dk/public/ phylogeny/tnt.
23. Goloboff, P., Pol, D., 2002. Semi-strict supertrees. Cladistics, 18, 514-525.
24. Morrone, J., 1994. On the identification of areas of endemism. Syst. Biol. 43, 438-441.
25. Nixon, K., 1999. The parsimony ratchet, a new method for rapid pasimony analysis. Cladistics, 15, 39-50.
26. Platnick, N., 1993. Character optimization and weighting: differences between the standard and three-taxon approaches to phylogenetic inference. Cladistics, 9, 267-272.
27. Ragan, M., 1992. Phylogenetic inference based on matrix representation of trees. Mol. Phyl. Evol. 1, 51-58.
28. Ross, H., Rodrigo. A., 2004. An assessment of matrix representation with compatibility in supertree construction. In: Bininda-Emonds, O. (Ed.), Phylogenetic Supertrees: Combining Information to Reveal the Tree of Life, Vol. 3. Kluwer Academic, The Netherlands, pp. 35-63.
29. Semple, C., Steel, M., 2000. A supertree method for rooted trees. Discrete Appl. Math. 105, 147-158.
30. Szumik, C., Cuezzo, F., Goloboff, P., Chalup, A., 2002. An optimality criterion to determine areas of endemism. Syst. Biol. 51, 806-816.
31. Szumik, C., Goloboff, P., 2004. Areas of endemism: an improved optimality criterion. Syst. Biol. 53, 968-977.
32. Wilkinson, M., Cotton, J., Creevey, C., Eulenstein, O., Harris, S., Lapointe, F., Levasseur, C., McInerney, J., Pisani, D., Thorley, J., in press. The shape of supertrees to come. Syst. Biol., in press.
33. Wilkinson, M., Thorley, J., Pisani, D., Lapointe, F., McInerney, J., 2004. Some desiderata for liberal supertrees. In: Bininda-Emonds, O. (Ed.), Phylogenetic Supertrees: Combining Information to Reveal the Tree of Life. Dress, A. (Series Ed.), Computational Biology, Vol. 3. Kluwer Academic, The Netherlands, pp. 227-246.