Statistical tests for taxonomic distinctiveness from observations of monophyly

Evolution

Volumn 61, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 317-323

  Rosenberg, Noah A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

Coalescent; Gene trees; Genealogical species concept; Phylogeography

Indexed keywords

GENEALOGY; PHYLOGENETICS; PHYLOGEOGRAPHY; SAMPLING; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; TAXONOMY;

ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; CLASSIFICATION; EVOLUTION; GENETIC VARIABILITY; SPECIES DIFFERENCE; SPECIES DIFFERENTIATION; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL MODEL;

CLASSIFICATION; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; EVOLUTION; GENETIC SPECIATION; LIKELIHOOD FUNCTIONS; MODELS, GENETIC; SPECIES SPECIFICITY; VARIATION (GENETICS);

EID: 33947104905     PISSN: 00143820     EISSN: 15585646     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2007.00023.x     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Aldous, D. J. 2001. Stochastic models and descriptive statistics for phylogenetic trees, from Yule to today. Stat. Sci. 16:23-34.
2. Avise, J. C., and R. M. Ball. 1990. Principles of genealogical concordance in species concepts and biological taxonomy. Oxford Surv. Evol. Biol. 7:45-67.
3. Baum, D., and K. L. Shaw. 1995. Genealogical perspectives on the species problem. Pp. 289-303, in P. C. Hoch and A. G. Stephenson, eds. Experimental and molecular approaches to plant biosystematics. Missouri Botanical Garden, St. Louis.
4. Brown, J. K. M. 1994. Probabilities of evolutionary trees. Syst. Biol. 43:78-91.
5. Harding, E. F. 1971. The probabilities of rooted tree-shapes generated by random bifurcation. Adv. Appl. Prob. 3:44-77.
6. Hebert, P. D. N., A. Cywinska, S. L. Ball, and J. R. deWaard. 2003. Biological identifications through DNA barcodes. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 270:313-321.
7. Hein, J., M. H. Schierup, and C. Wiuf. 2005. Gene genealogies, variation and evolution. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, U.K.
8. Hickerson, M. J., C. P. Meyer, and C. Moritz. 2006. DNA barcoding will often fail to discover new animal species over broad parameter space. Syst. Biol. 55:729-739.
9. Hudson, R. R., and J. A. Coyne. 2002. Mathematical consequences of the genealogical species concept. Evolution 56:1557-1565.
10. Huelsenbeck, J. P., D. M. Hillis, and R. Nielsen. 1996. A likelihood-ratio test of monophyly. Syst. Biol. 45:546-558.
11. Johnson, J. A., R. T. Watson, and D. P. Mindell. 2005. Prioritizing species conservation: does the Cape Verde kite exist? Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 272:1365-1371.
12. Krings, M., A. Stone, R. W. Schmitz, H. Krainitzki, M. Stoneking, and S. Pääbo. 1997. Neandertal DNA sequences and the origin of modern humans. Cell 90:19-30.
13. Maddison, W. P., and M. Slatkin. 1991. Null models for the number of evolutionary steps in a character on a phylogenetic tree. Evolution 45:1184-1197.
14. Meyer, C. P., and G. Paulay. 2005. DNA barcoding: error rates based on comprehensive sampling. PLoS Biol. 3:2229-2238.
15. Moritz, C. 1994. Defining "evolutionary significant units" for conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 9:373-375.
16. Moritz, C., and C. Cicero. 2004. DNA barcoding: promise and pitfalls. PLoS Biol. 2:1529-1531.
17. Nordborg, M. 1998. On the probability of Neanderthal ancestry. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 63:1237-1240.
18. _. 2003. Coalescent theory. 2nd ed. Pp. 602-635 in D. J. Balding, M. Bishop, and C. Cannings, eds. Handbook of statistical genetics. Wiley, Chichester, UK.
19. Rosenberg, N. A. 2003. The shapes of neutral gene genealogies in two species: probabilities of monophyly, paraphyly, and polyphyly in a coalescent model. Evolution 57:1465-1477.
20. _. 2006. The mean and variance of the numbers of r-pronged nodes and r-caterpillars in Yule-generated genealogical trees. Ann. Comb. 10:129-146.
21. Shaw, K. L. 1998. Species and the diversity of natural groups. Pp. 44-56 in D. J. Howard and S. J. Berlocher, eds. Endless forms: species and speciation. Oxford Univ. Press, New York.
22. Slowinski, J. B., and C. Guyer. 1989. Testing the stochasticity of patterns of organismal diversity: an improved null model. Am. Nat. 134:907-921.
23. Steel, M., and A. McKenzie. 2001. Properties of phylogenetic trees generated by Yule-type speciation models. Math. Biosci. 170:91-112.
24. Steiper, M. E. 2006. Population history, biogeography, and taxonomy of orangutans (Genus: Pongo) based on a population genetic meta-analysis of multiple loci. J. Hum. Evol. 50:509-522.
25. Weisrock, D. W., H. B. Shaffer, B. L. Storz, S. R. Storz, and S. R. Voss. 2006. Multiple nuclear gene sequences identify phylogenetic species boundaries in the rapidly radiating clade of Mexican ambystomatid salamanders. Mol. Ecol. 15:2489-2503.
26. Yule, G. U. 1924.Amathematical theory of evolution based on the conclusions of Dr. J. C. Willis. F. R. S. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 213:21-87.