Correcting the problem of false incongruence due to noise imbalance in the incongruence length difference (ILD) test

Systematic Biology

Volumn 56, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 496-503

  Quicke, Donald L J ^a,b   Jones, Owen R ^a   Epstein, Daniella R ^a  

^a IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b DEPARTMENT OF LIFE SCIENCES   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Congruence; Homoplasy; Incongruence; Noise; Partition homogeneity test

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ARTIFACT; BIOLOGY; COMPUTER SIMULATION; EVOLUTION; METHODOLOGY; PHYLOGENY;

ARTIFACTS; COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY; COMPUTER SIMULATION; EVOLUTION; PHYLOGENY;

EID: 34548593640     PISSN: 10635157     EISSN: 1076836X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10635150701429974     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Aagesen, L., G. Petersen, and O. Seberg. 2005. Sequence length variation, indel costs, and congruence in sensitivity analysis. Cladistics 21:15-30. (Pubitemid 40534292)
2. Baker, R. H., and R. DeSalle. 1997. Multiple sources of character information and the phylogeny of Hawaiian drosophilids. Syst. Biol. 46: 654-673. (Pubitemid 127366000)
3. Barker, F. K., and F. M. Lutzoni. 2002. The utility of the incongruence length difference test. Syst. Biol. 51: 625-637. (Pubitemid 35180691)
4. Cunningham, C. W. 1997. Can three incongruence tests predict when data should be combined? Mol. Phy. Evol. 14:733- 740. (Pubitemid 27287294)
5. Darlu, P., and G. Lecointre. 2002. When does the incongruence length difference test fail? Mol. Biol. Evol. 19:432-437. (Pubitemid 34289418)
6. Dolphin, K., R. Belshaw, C. D. L. Orme, and D. L. J. Quicke. 2000. Noise and incongruence: interpreting ILD test results. Mol. Biol. Evol. 17:401-406.
7. Dowton, M., and A. D. Austin. 2002. Increased congruence does not necessarily indicate increased phylogenetic accuracy - The behavior of the incongruence length difference test in mixed-model analyses. Syst. Biol. 51:19-31. (Pubitemid 35169405)
8. Farris, J. S., M. Kallersjo, A. G. Kluge, and C Bult. 1994. Testing significance of incongruence. Cladistics 10: 315-319.
9. Farris, J. S., M. Kallersjo, A. G. Kluge, and C. Bult. 1995. Constructing a significance test for incongruence. Syst. Biol. 44:570- 572.
10. Gaubert, P., W. C. Wozencraft, P. Cordeiro-Estrela, and G. Veron. 2005. Mosaics of convergences and noise in morphological phylogenies: What's in a viverrid-like carnivoran? Syst. Biol. 54:865- 894.
11. Hipp, L., J. C. Hall, and K. J. Sytsma. 2004. Congruence versus phylogenetic accuracy: revisiting the incongruence length difference test. Syst. Biol. 53:81-89. (Pubitemid 38370422)
12. Lee, M. S. Y. 2001. Uninformative characters and apparent conflict between molecules and morphology. Mol. Biol. Evol. 18:676-680. (Pubitemid 32268021)
13. Planet, P. J., and I. N. Sarkar. 2005. mILD: A tool for constructing and analyzing matrices of pairwise phylogenetic character incongruence tests. Bioinformatics 21:4423-4424. (Pubitemid 41782937)
14. Swofford, D. L. 2001. PAUP*: Phylogenetic analysis using parsimony (*and other methods). Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts.
15. Thornton, J. W., and R. DeSalle. 2000. A new method to localize and test the significance of incongruence: Detecting domain shuffling in the nuclear receptor superfamily. Syst. Biol. 49:183- 201.
16. Vidal, N., and Lecointre, G 1998. Weighting and congruence: A case study based on three mitochondrial genes in pitvipers. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 9:366-374. (Pubitemid 128351472)
17. Yoder, A. D., J. A. Irwin, and B. A. Payseur. 2001. Failure of the ILD to determine data combinability for slow loris phylogeny. Syst. Biol. 50:408-424.