A question of conflict: Three‐item and standard parsimony compared

Systematics and Biodiversity

Volumn 1, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 145-149

  Nelson, G ^a   Williams, D M ^b   Ebach, M C ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

^b DEPARTMENT OF LIFE SCIENCES   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Cladistics; Parsimony; Three item analysis

Indexed keywords

EID: 85010515878     PISSN: 14772000     EISSN: 14780933     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S1477200003001130     Document Type: Article

References (6)

1. FARRIS, J.S. 1988. Hennig 86, version 1.5. Privately Published. FARRIS, J.S. 1995. Parsimony jackknifer, version 4.22. Privately Published.
2. GOLOBOFF, P. 1999. NONA (NO NAME) ver. 2. Privately Published, Tucuman, Argentina.
3. Kitching, I.J., Forey, P., Humphries, C.J. & Williams, D.M. 1998. Cladistics: The Theory and Practice of Parsimony Analysis. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
4. NELSON, G. & Ladiges, P.Y. 1993. Information content and fractional weight of three-taxon statements. Systematic Biology 41,490-494.
5. NELSON, G. & Ladiges, P.Y. 1994. Three-item consensus: Empirical test of fractional weighting. In Scotland, R.W., Siebert, D J. & Williams, D.M. (eds), Models of Phylogeny Reconstruction. Systematics Association Special Volume 52, pp. 193-209. Oxford University Press, London.
6. Williams, D.M. & Siebert, D.J. 2000. Characters, homology and three-item statement analysis. In Scotland, R. W. & Pennington, T. (eds), Homology and Systematics Chapman & Hall, pp. 183-208.