Abstract
A debate over the use of consensus methods for combining trees, as opposed to combination of data sets, is currently growing in the field of phylogenetics. Resolution of this question is greatly influenced by the consensus method employed (i.e., for unweighted or weighted trees). In the present paper, my main objective is to review some of these methods that allow for the combination of weighted trees. These consensus with branch lengths will be compared to some of the commonly used consensus methods for n-trees. Finally, I will extend the results to supertrees.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adams, E. N. III. (1972). Consensus techniques and the comparison of taxonomic trees, Systematic Zoology, 21, 390–397.
Barrett, M., Donoghue, M. J. & Sober, E. (1991). Against consensus, Systematic Zoology, 40, 486–493.
Brossier, G. (1990). Piecewise hierarchical clustering, Journal of Classification, 7, 197–216.
Cucumel, G. (1990). Construction d’une hiérarchie consensus à l’aide d’une ultramétrique centrale, in: Recueil des Textes des Présentations du Colloque sur les Méthodes et Domaines d’Application de la Statistique 1990, Bureau de la Statistique du Québec, Québec, 235–243.
de Queiroz, A. (1993). For consensus (sometimes), Systematic Biology, 42, 368–372.
de Queiroz, A., Donoghue, M. J. & Kim, J. (1995). Separate versus combined analysis of phylogenetic evidence, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 26, 657–681.
Gordon, A. D. (1986). Consensus supertrees: The synthesis of rooted trees containing overlapping sets of labeled leaves, Journal of Classification, 3, 335–348.
Hendy, M. D. (1991). A combinatorial description of the closest tree algorithm for finding evolutionary trees, Discrete Mathematics, 96, 51–58.
Hendy, M. D. & Penny, D. (1993). Spectral analysis of phylogenetic data, Journal of Classification, 10, 5–24.
Huelsenbeck, J. P., Bull, J. J. & Cunningham, W. (1996). Combining data in phylogenetic analysis, Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 11, 152–158.
Kirsch, J. A. W., Springer, M. S. & Lapointe, F.-J. Out of Africa: a distance-based approach to character and taxonomic congruence in placental phylogeny, submitted.
Kluge, A. G. (1989). A concern for evidence and a phylogenetic hypothesis of relationships among Epicrates (Boidae, Serpentes), Systematic Biology, 38, 7–25.
Lapointe, F.-J. (1997). How to validate phylogenetic trees? A stepwise procedure, in: Data Science, Classification, and Related Methods: Studies in Classification, Data Analysis, and Knowledge Optimization, Hayashi, C., Bock, H. H., Yajima, K., Tanaka, Y., Oshumi, N. & Baba, Y. (Eds), Springer, Tokyo, in press.
Lapointe, F.-J. & Cucumel, G. (1997). The average consensus procedure: Combination of weighted trees containing identical or overlapping sets of taxa, Systematic Biology, 46, 306–312.
Lapointe, F.-J., Kirsch, J. A. W. & Bleiweiss, R. (1994). Jackknifing of weighted trees: Validation of phylogenies reconstructed from distances matrices, Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 3, 256–267.
Lapointe, F.-J., Kirsch, J. A. W. & Hutcheon, J. M. Total evidence, consensus, and bat phylogeny: a distance-based approach, submitted.
Landry, P.-A. & Lapointe, F.-J. (1997). Estimation of missing distances in path- length matrices: problems and solutions, in Mathematical Hierarchies and Biology, Mirkin, B., McMorris, F. R., Roberts, F. S. & Rzhetsky, A. (Eds), DEVLACS Series in Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science, American Mathematical Society, Providence, 209–218.
Lefkovitch, L. P. (1976). Hierarchical clustering from principal coordinates: An efficient method from small to very large number of objects, Mathematical Biosciences, 31, 157–176.
Lefkovitch, L. P. (1978). Consensus coordinates from qualitative and quantitative attributes, Biomedical Journal, 20, 679–691.
Lefkovitch, L. P. (1985). Euclidean consensus dendrograms and other classification structures, Mathematical Bioscience, 74, 1–15.
Margush, T. & McMorris, F. R. (1981). Consensus n-trees. Bulletin of Mathematical Biology, 43, 239–244.
Miyamoto, M. M. & Fitch, W M. (1995). Testing species phylogenies and phylogenetic methods with congruence, Systematic Biology, 44, 64–76.
Neumann, D. A. (1983). Faithful consensus methods for n-trees, Mathematical Bioscience, 63, 271–287.
Sokal, R. R. & Rohlf, F. J. (1981). Taxonomic congruence in the Leptopodomorpha re-examined, Systematic Zoology, 30, 309–325.
Stinebrickner, R. (1984a). S-consensus trees and indices, Bulletin of Mathematical Biology, 46, 923–935.
Stinebrickner, R. (1984b). An extension of intersection methods from trees to dendrogram, Systematic Zoology, 33, 381–386.
Vichi, M. (1993). Un algoritmo dei minimi quadrati per interpolare un insieme di classificazioni gerarchiche con une classificazione consenso, Metron, 51, 139–163.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1998 Springer-Verlag Berlin · Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Lapointe, FJ. (1998). For Consensus (With Branch Lengths). In: Rizzi, A., Vichi, M., Bock, HH. (eds) Advances in Data Science and Classification. Studies in Classification, Data Analysis, and Knowledge Organization. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-72253-0_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-72253-0_10
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-64641-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-72253-0
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive