The compatibility of stratigraphic and comparative constraints on estimates of ancestor-descendant relations

Systematics and Biodiversity

Volumn 4, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 9-17

  Estabrook, G F ^a   McMorris, F R ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^b Illinois Institute of Technology   (United States)

Author keywords

Character compatibility; Phylogeny; Stratigraphy

Indexed keywords

EID: 33644520328     PISSN: 14772000     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S147720000500188X     Document Type: Review

References (33)

1. ALROY, J. 1995. Continuous track analysis: a new phylogenetic and biogeographic method. Systematic Biology 44, 152-178.
2. BENTON, M.J. 1999. Early origins of modern birds and mammals: molecules vs. morphology. BioEssays 21, 1043-1051.
3. BODENBENDER, R.E. & FISHER, D.C. 2001. Strato-cladistic analysis of blastid phylogeny. Journal of Paleontology 75, 351-369.
4. BOUCOT, A.J. & HARPER, C.W. 1968. Silurian to Lower Devonian Chonetoidea. Journal of Paleontology 42(1), 143-176.
5. DUNBAR, C.O. & CONDRA, G.E. 1932. Brachiopoda of the Pennsylvanian system in Nebraska. Nebraska Geological Survey Bulletin (5), Second Series.
6. EASTEAL, S. 1999. Molecular evidence for the early divergence of placental mammals. BioEssays 21, 1052-1058.
7. ESTABROOK, G.F. 1978. Some concepts for the estimation of evolutionary relationships in systematic botany. Systematic Botany 3, 146-158.
8. ESTABROOK, G.F. 1984. Character state trees and phylogenetic trees. In: DUNCAN, T.O. & STUESSY, T.F., Eds., Cladistics. Columbia University Press, New York, pp. 135-151.
9. ESTABROOK, G.F. 1997. Ancestor-descendant relations and incompatible data: Motivation for research in discrete mathematics. DIMACS Serie in Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science 37, 1-28.
10. ESTABROOK, G.F. 2003. Computer Programs of George F. Estabrook http://www-Personal.umich.edu/~gfe
11. ESTABROOK, G.F., JOHNSON, C.S. & MCMORRIS, F.R. 1975. An idealized concept of the true cladistic character. Mathematical Bio Sciences 23, 263-272.
12. ESTABROOK, G.F., JOHNSON, C.S. & MCMORRIS, F.R. 1976a. An algebraic analysis of cladistic characters. Discrete Mathematics 16 (2), 141-147.
13. ESTABROOK, G.F., JOHNSON, C.S. & MCMORRIS, F.R. 1976b. A mathematical foundation for the analysis of cladistic character compatibility. Mathematical BioSciences 29, 181-187.
14. ESTABROOK, G.F. & MCMORRIS, F.R. 1977. When are two qualitative taxonomic characters compatible? Journal of Mathematical Biology 4, 195-200.
15. ESTABROOK, G.F. & MEACHAM, C.A. 1979. How to determine the compatibility of undirected character state trees. Mathematical BioSciences 46, 251-256.
16. ESTABROOK, G.F. & MCMORRIS, F.R. 1980. When is one estimate of evolutionary relationships a refinement of another? Journal of Mathematical Biology 7, 367-373.
17. FISHER, D.C. 1992. Stratigraphic parsimony. In: MADDISON, W.P. & MADDISON, D.R., Eds., McClade: analysis of phylogeny character evolution, version 3. Sinauer, Sunderland MA, pp. 124-132.
18. FOX, O.L., FISHER, D.C. & LEIGHTON, L.R. 1999. Reconstructing phylogeny with and without temporal data. Science 284, 1816-1819.
19. HARARY, F., KABELL, J.A. & MCMORRIS, F.R. 1990. Interval acyclic digraphs. Ars Combinatoria 29A, 59-64.
20. HUELSENBECK, J.P. 1991. When are fossils better than extant taxa in phylogenetic analysis? Systematic Zoology 40, 458-469.
21. LEQUESNE, W.J. 1969. A method of selection of characters in numerical taxonomy. Systematic Zoology 18, 201-205.
22. MEACHAM, C.A. 1983. Theoretical and computational considerations of the compatibility of qualitative taxonomic characters. In: FELSENSTEIN, J., Ed, Numerical taxonomy. NATO Advanced Study Institute Series, Volume G1, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 304-314.
23. MEACHAM, C.A. 1984a. The role of hypothesized direction of characters in the estimation of evolutionary history. Taxon 33, 26-38.
24. MEACHAM, C.A. 1984b. Evaluating characters by character compatibility analysis. In: DUNCAN, T.O. & STUESSY, T.F., Eds., Cladistics. Columbia University Press, New York, pp. 152-166.
25. MEACHAM, C.A. 1989. Hasse diagram of "is a refinement of" lattice. Class notes. University of California, Berkeley.
26. MEACHAM, C.A. & DUNCAN, T.O. 1986. The necessity of convex groups in biological classification. Systematic Botany 11, 53-62.
27. MEACHAM. C.A. & ESTABROOK, G.F. 1985. Compatibility methods in systematics. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 16, 431-446.
28. NATURE. 1999. Stratigraphic constraints: on-line debates. http://helix.nature.com/debates/fossil
29. PETRONIO, C. & RAFFAELE, S. 1999. Biochronology of the Pleistocene mammal fauna from Ponte Galeria (Roma) and remarks on the Middle Galerian faunas. Revista Italiana di Paleontologia e Stratigrafia 105, 155-164.
30. RAUP, D.M. & STANLEY, S.M. 1978. Principles of paleontology. W. Freeman & Co., San Francisco.
31. ROWE, A.W. 1899. An analysis of the genus Micraster as determined by rigid zonal collecting from the zone of Rhynchonella cuvieri to that of Micraster cor-anguinum. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London 55, 497-547 (figure on page 542).
32. SMITH, A.B. 1994. Systematics and the fossil record. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford.
33. THEWISSEN, J.G.M. 1992. Temporal data in phylogenetic systematics. An example from the mammalian fossil record. Journal of Paleontology 66, 1-8.