Combination of data in phylogenetic analysis

  • H.-J. Bandelt
Part of the Plant Systematics and Evolution Supplement 9 book series (SYSTEMATICS, volume 9)

Abstract

In phylogenetic analysis, when faced with different data sets from different sources, two approaches, “taxonomic congruence” and “total evidence”, compete with one another in seeking a best-fitting hypothesis. In either approach one deliberately ignores the notorious uncertainty typically associated with the estimate of a best tree. It is proposed here to represent the partly conflicting information contained in the data by specific networks with reticulations. This allows more flexibility in evaluating and eventually combining data.

Key words

Phylogenetic analysis combination of data consensus techniques networks 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bandelt, H.-J., 1992: Generating median graphs from Boolean matrices. — In Dodge, Y., (Ed.): L 1-statistical analysis and related methods, pp. 305–309. — Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  2. — 1994: Phylogenetic networks. — Verhandl. Naturwiss. Vereins Hamburg 34: 51–71.Google Scholar
  3. Dress, A. W. M., 1992 a: A canonical decomposition theory for metrics on a finite set. — Advances Math. 92: 47–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. — 1992 b: Split decomposition: a new and useful approach to phylogenetic analysis of distance data. — Molec. Phyl. Evol. 1: 242–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. — 1993: A relational approach to split decomposition. — In Opitz, O., Lausen, B., Klar, R., (Eds.): Information and classification, pp. 123–131. — Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barrett, M., Donoghue, M. J., Sober, E., 1991: Against consensus. — Syst. Zool. 40: 486–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baum, B. R., 1992: Combining trees as a way of combining data sets for phylogenetic inference, and the desirability of combining gene trees. — Taxon 41: 3–10.Google Scholar
  8. Ragan, M. A., 1993: Reply to A. G., Rodrigo’s ”A comment on Baum’s method for combining phylogenetic trees“. — Taxon 42: 637–640.Google Scholar
  9. Bull, J. J., Huelsenbeck, J. P., Cunningham, C. W., Swofford, D. L., Waddell, P. J., 1993: Partitioning and combining data in phylogenetic analysis. — Syst. Biol. 42: 384–397.Google Scholar
  10. Chippendale, P. T., Wiens, J. J., 1994: Weighting, partitioning, and combining characters in phylogenetic analysis. — Syst. Biol. 43: 278–287.Google Scholar
  11. Crother, B. L., Presch, W. F., 1992: The phylogeny of Xantusiid lizards: the concern for analysis in the search for a best estimate of phylogeny. — Molec. Phyl. Evol. 1: 289–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. DE Queiroz, A., 1993: For consensus (sometimes). — Syst. Biol. 42: 368–372.Google Scholar
  13. Doyle, J. J., 1992: Gene trees and species trees: molecular systematics as one-character taxonomy. — Syst. Bot. 17: 144–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hedges, S. B., Bezy, R. L., 1993: Phylogeny of Xantusiid lizards: concern for data and analysis. — Molec. Phyl. Evol. 2: 76–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hendy, M. D., Penny, D., 1993: Spectral analysis of phylogenetic data. — J. Classification 10: 5–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Huelsenbeck, J. P., Swofford, D. L., Cunningham, C. W., Bull, J. J., Waddell, P. J., 1994: Is character weighting a panacea for the problem of data heterogeneity in phylogenetic analysis? — Syst. Biol. 43: 288–291.Google Scholar
  17. Kluge, A. G., 1989: A concern for evidence and a phylogenetic hypothesis of relationships among Epicrates (Boidae, Serpentes). — Syst. Zool. 38: 7–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Meacham, C. A., Estabrook, G. F., 1985: Compatibility methods in systematics. — Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 16: 431–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mickevich, M. F., 1978: Taxonomic congruence. — Syst. Zool. 27: 143–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Miyamoto, M. M., 1985: Consensus cladograms and general classifications. — Cladistics 1: 186–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ragan, M. A., 1992: Phylogenetic inference based on matrix representation of trees. — Molec. Phyl. Evol. 1: 53–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rodrigo, A. G., 1993: A comment on Baum’s method for combining phylogenetic trees. — Taxon 42: 631–636.Google Scholar
  23. Swofford, D. L., 1991: When are phylogeny estimates from molecular and morphological data incongruent? — In Miyamoto, M. M., Cracraft, J., (Eds): Phylogenetic analysis of DNA sequences, pp. 295–333. — New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Olsen, G. J., 1990: Phylogeny reconstruction. — In Hillis, D. M., Moritz, C., (Eds): Molecular systematics, pp. 411–501. — Sunderland: Sinauer.Google Scholar
  25. Steel, M. A., Hendy, M. D., Penny, D., 1994: A discrete Fourier analysis for evolutionary trees. — Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 91: 3339–3343.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Szekely, L. A., Penny, D., 1992: Spectral analysis and a closest tree method for genetic sequences. — Appl. Math. Letters 5: 63–67.Google Scholar
  27. Williams, D. M., 1994: Combining trees and combining data. — Taxon 43: 449–453.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Wien 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • H.-J. Bandelt
    • 1
  1. 1.Mathematisches Seminar, Universität HamburgHamburgFederal Republic of Germany

Personalised recommendations