Three-item analysis: Hierarchical representation and treatment of missing and inapplicable data

Comptes Rendus - Palevol

Volumn 6, Issue 6-7, 2007, Pages 527-534

  Zaragüeta Bagils, René ^a   Bourdon, Estelle ^b,c  

^a SORBONNE UNIVERSITÉ   (France)

^b CNRS   (France)

^c Centre de Recherche Interdisciplinaire en Biologie   (France)

Author keywords

Hierarchical representation of hypotheses of homology; Inapplicable data; Matrix based methods; Missing data; Taxon character matrices; Three item analysis

Indexed keywords

DATA REDUCTION; HIERARCHICAL SYSTEMS; MATRIX ALGEBRA;

DATA ASSIMILATION; DATABASE; HIERARCHICAL SYSTEM; HOMOLOGY; HYPOTHESIS TESTING; MATRIX; PARSIMONY ANALYSIS; TAXONOMY;

EID: 36749099454     PISSN: 16310683     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.crpv.2007.09.013     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Brower A.V.Z., and Schawaroch V. Three steps of homology assessement. Cladistics 12 (1996) 265-272
2. Cao N., Zaragüeta Bagils R., and Vignes-Lebbe R. Hierarchical representation of hypotheses of homology. Geodiversitas 29 (2007) 5-15
3. Descartes R. Discours de la méthode pour bien conduire sa raison et chercher la vérité dans les sciences, plus la dioptrique les météores et la géométrie qui sont des essais de cette méthode (1637), Imprimerie de I. Maire, Leyde
4. E. Diday, Une représentation visuelle des classes empiétantes : les pyramides, Rapport de recherche, INRIA, Rocquencourt, 1984, p. 75.
5. Frege G. Écrits Logiques et Philosophiques (1971), Éditions du Seuil, Paris
6. Freudenstein J.V. Characters, states, and homology. Syst. Biol. 54 (2006) 965-973
7. Grande L., and Bemis W.E. A comprehensive phylogenetic study of amiid fishes (Amiidae) based on comparative skeletal anatomy. An empirical search for interconnected patterns of natural history, Society of Vertebrate Paleontology Memoir 4. J. Vertebr. Paleontol. 18 Suppl. (1998) 1-690
8. Hawkins J.A., Hughes C.E., and Scotland R.W. Primary homology assessment, characters and character states. Cladistics 13 (1997) 275-283
9. Kearney M., and Clark J.M. Problems due to missing data in phylogenetic analyses including fossils: a critical review. J. Vertebr. Palaeontol. 23 (2003) 263-274
10. Kitching I.J., Forey P.L., Humphries C.J., and Williams D.W. Cladistics: The Theory and Practice of Parsimony Analysis. second edn (1998), Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK
11. Kluge A.G. Three-taxon transformation in phylogenetic inference: ambiguity and distortion as regards explanatory power. Cladistics 9 (1993) 246-259
12. J. Lebbe, Représentation des concepts en biologie et médecine. Introduction à l'analyse des connaissances et à l'identification assistée par ordinateur, thèse, université Paris-6, 1991, p. 281.
13. Lelièvre H., Zaragüeta-Bagils R., and Rouget I. Temporal information, fossil record and phylogeny. C. R. Palevol. 6-7 (2007)
14. Lee D.-C., and Bryant H.N. A reconsideration of the coding of inapplicable characters: assumptions and problems. Cladistics 15 (1999) 373-378
15. Maddison D.R. Missing data versus missing characters in phylogenetic analysis. Syst. Biol. 42 (1993) 576-581
16. G.J. Nelson, Reply, Cladistics 9 (1993) 261-265.
17. Nelson G.J. La systématique et l'homologie. In: Tassy P., and Lelièvre H. (Eds). Caractères (1994), Société française de systématique, Paris 5-28
18. Nelson G.J. Homology and Systematics. In: Hall B.K. (Ed). The Hierarchical Basis of Comparative Biology (1994), Academic Press, San Diego 101-149
19. Nelson G.J., and Platnick N.I. Systematics and Biogeography: Cladistics and Vicariance (1981), Columbia University Press, New York
20. Nelson G.J., and Ladiges P.Y. Three-area statements: standard assumptions for biogeographic analysis. Syst. Zool. 40 (1991) 470-485
21. Nelson G.J., and Platnick N.I. Three-taxon statements: a more precise use of parsimony?. Cladistics 7 (1991) 351-366
22. Nelson G.J., and Ladiges P.-Y. Information content and fractional weight of three-item statements. Syst. Biol. 41 (1992) 490-494
23. Patterson C. Significance of fossils in determining evolutionary relationships. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 12 (1981) 195-223
24. de Pinna M.C.C. Concepts and tests of homology in the cladistic paradigm. Cladistics 7 (1991) 367-394
25. Platnick N.I. Character optimization and weighting: differences between the standard and three-taxon approaches to phylogenetic inference. Cladistics 9 (1993) 267-272
26. Platnick N.I. Philosophy and the transformation of cladistics. Syst. Zool. 28 (1979) 537-546
27. Pleijel F. On character coding for phylogeny reconstruction. Cladistics 11 (1995) 309-315
28. Popper K. Conjectures et Réfutations : la croissance du savoir scientifique (1972), Payot, Paris
29. Strauss R.E., Atanasov M.N., and Alves de Oliveira J. Evaluation of the principal-component and expectation-maximization methods for estimating missing data in morphometrics studies. J. Vertebr. Paleontol. 23 (2003) 284-296
30. Wilkinson M. Three-taxon statements: when is a parsimony analysis also a clique analysis?. Cladistics 10 (1994) 221-223
31. Williams D.W. Homologues and homology, phenetics and cladistics: 150 years of progress. In: Williams D.W., and Forey P.L. (Eds). Milestones in Systematics (2004), CRC - The Systematics Association, London 191-224
32. Zaragüeta Bagils R., Lelièvre H., and Tassy P. Temporal paralogy, cladograms, and the quality of the fossil record. Geodiversitas 26 (2004) 381-389