Meta-trees: Grafting for a global perspective

Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington

Volumn 120, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 232-240

  Funk, V A ^a   Specht, Chelsea D ^b  

^a DEPARTMENT OF PALEOBIOLOGY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DATA SET; PHYLOGENETICS; TAXONOMY; TREE;

EID: 34548583612     PISSN: 0006324X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2988/0006-324X(2007)120[232:MGFAGP]2.0.CO;2     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Bininda-Emonds, O. R. P., J. Gittleman, & A. Purvis. 1999. Building large trees by combining phylogenetic information: A complete phylogeny of the extant Carnivora (Mammalia). - Biological Review 74:143-175.
2. Bininda-Emonds, O. R. P., et al. 2003, Supertrees are a necessary not so evil: A comment of Gatesy et al. - Systematic Biology 52:724-729.
3. Bininda-Emonds, O. R. P., 2004a. Trees versus characters and the supertree/supermatrix "Paradox". - Systematic Biology 53:356-359,
4. Bininda-Emonds, O. R. P., 2004b. The evolution of supertrees. - Trends in Ecology and Evolution 19:315-322.
5. Bininda-Emonds, O. R. P., (ed.). 2004c. Phylogenetic Supertrees: Combining Information to Reveal the Tree of Life. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, the Netherlands, 550 pp.
6. Brooks, D. R. 1981, Hennig's parasitological method: a proposed solution. - Systematic Zoology 30:229-249.
7. Brooks, D. R. 1985. Historical ecology: A new approach to studying the evolution of ecological associations. - Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 72:660-80.
8. Davies, T. J., T. G. Barraclough, M. W. Chase, P. S. Soltis, D. E. Soltis, & V. Savolainen. 2004. Darwin's abominable mystery: insights from a supertree of the angiosperms. - Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 101:1904-1909.
9. Dunn, K. A,, J. D. McEachran, & R. L. Honeycutt. 2003. Molecular phylogenetics of myliobatiform fishes (Chondrichthyes: Myliobatiformes) with comments on the effects of missing data on parsimony and likelihood. - Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 27:259-270.
10. Funk, V. A., & D. R. Brook. 1990. Phylogenetic systematics as the basis of comparative biology. - Smithsonian Contributions to Botany 73:1-45.
11. Funk, V. A., et al. 2005. Everywhere but Antarctica: Using a supertree to understand the diversity and distribution of the Compositae. Pp. 343-373 in I. Friis and H. Balslev, eds., Proceedings of a Symposium on Plant Diversity and Complexity Patterns - Local, Regional and Global Dimensions. - Biologiske Skrifter, vol. 55.
12. Gatsey, J., M. Milinkovitch, V. Waddell, & M. Stanhope, 1999. Stability of cladistic relationships between Cetacea and higher-level artiodacty taxa. - Systematic Biology 48:6-20.
13. Gatsey, J., C. Matthee, R. DeSalle, & C. Hayashi. 2002. Resolution of a supertree/supermatrix paradox. - Systematic Biology 51:652-664.
14. Goldstein. P. Z., & C. D. Specht. 1998. Pitfalls in phylogenetic analysis of large molecular data sets. Pp. 253-274 in R. DeSalle and B. Schierwater, eds., Molecular Approaches to Ecology and Evolution. Birkhauser, Verlag, Basel.
15. Goloboff, P. A., & D. Pol. 2002, Semi-strict supertrees. - Cladistics 18:514-525.
16. Gordon, A. G. 1986. Consensus supertrees: the synthesis of rooted trees containing overlapping sets of labeled leaves. - Journal of Classification 3:335-348.
17. Grenyer, R,, & A, Purvis. 2003. A composite species-level phylogeny of the 'Insectivora' (Mammalia: Order Lipotyphla Haeckel, 1866). - Journal of Zoology 260:245-257.
18. Hennig, W. 1966. Phylogenetic Systematics. University of Illinois Press, Champaign-Urbana.
19. Jones, K. E., A. Purvis, A. MacLarnon, O. R. P. Bininda-Emonds, & N. B. Simmons. 2002. A phylogenetic supertrce of the bats (Mammalia: Chiroptera). - Biological Review 77:223-259.
20. Liu, F. et al. 2001. Molecular and morphological supertrees for eutherian (placental) mammals. - Science 291:1786-1789.
21. Mishler, B. D. 1994. Cladistic analysis of molecular and morphological data. - American Journal of Physical Anthropology 94:143-156.
22. Moore, B. R., K. M. A. Chan, & M. J. Donoghue. 2004. Detecting diversification rate variation in supertrees. Pp. 487-533 in O. Bininda-Emonds, ed., Phylogenetic Supertrees: Combining Information to Reveal the Tree of Life. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
23. Nixon, K. C. 1996. Paleobotany in cladistics and cladistics in paleobotany: enlightenment and uncertainty. - Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 90:361-373.
24. Nixon, K. C. & J. I. Davis. 1991. Polymorphic taxa, missing values and cladistic analysis. - Cladistics 7:233-241.
25. Page, R. 2004. Taxonomy, supertrees, and the tree of life. Pp. 247-265 in O. R. P. Bininda-Emonds, ed., Phylogenetic Supertrees: Combining Information to Reveal the Tree of Life. Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Neatherlands.
26. Platnick, N. I., C. E. Griswold, & J. A. Coddington. 1991. On missing entries in cladistic analysis. - Cladistics 7:337-343.
27. Panero, J., & V. Funk. 2002. Toward a phylogenetic subfamilial classification for the Compositae (Asteraceae). - Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 115:909-922.
28. Purvis, A. 1995. A composite estimate of primate phylogeny. - Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 348:405-421.
29. Qui, Y.-L. et al. 2005. Phylogenetic analyses of basal angiosperms based on nine plastid, mitochondrial, and nuclear genes. - International Journal of Plant Sciences 166:815-842.
30. Rosen, D. E. 1978. Vicariant patterns and historical explanation in biogeography. - Systematic Zoology 27:159-188.
31. Rosen, D. E. 1979. Fishes from the uplands and intermontane basins of Guatemala: Revisionary studies and comparative biogeography. - Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 162:267-376.
32. Sanchez-Baracaldo, P., P. K. Hayes, & C. E. Blank. 2005. Morphological and habitat evolution in the Cyanobacteria using a compartmentalization approach. - Geobiology 3:145-165.
33. Sanderson, M. J., A. Purvis, & C. Henze. 1998. Phylogenetic supertrees: assembling the trees of life. - Trends in Ecology and Evolution 13:105-109.
34. Sanderson, M. J., & A. C. Driskell. 2003. The challenge of constructing large phylogenetic trees. - Trends in Plant Science 8:374-379.
35. Springer, M. S., & W. W. DeJong. 2001. Which mammalian supertree to bark up? - Science 291:1709-1711.
36. Steel, M., A. W. M. Dress, & S. Böcker. 2000. Simple but fundamental limitations on supertree and consensus tree methods. - Systematic Biology 49:363-368.
37. Weiblen, G. D., R. K. Oyama, & M. J. Donoghue. 2000. Phylogenetic analysis of dioecy in monocotyledons. - The American Naturalist 155:46-58.
38. Wiens, J. J. 2006. Missing data and the design of phylogenetic analyses. - Journal of Biomedical Informatics 39:34-42.
39. Wilkinson, M. 1995a. Coping with abundant missing entries in phylogenetic inference using parsimony. - Systematic Biology 44:501-514.
40. Wilkinson, M. 1995b. Arbitrary resolutions, missing entries, and the problem of zero-length branches in parsimony analysis. - Systematic Biology 44:108-111.
41. Wilkinson, M., J. L. Thorley, D. Pisani, F.-J. Lapointe, & J. O. McInerney. 2004. Some desiderata for liberal supertrees. Pp. 227-246 in O. R. P. Bininda-Emonds, ed., Phylogenetic Supertrees: Combining Information to Reveal the Tree of Life. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
42. Wilkinson, M., et al. 2005. The shape of supertrees to come: tree shape related properties of fourteen supertree methods. - Systematic Biology 54:419-431.