Abstract
As in conventional phylogenetic analyses, issues surrounding the source data are paramount in the supertree construction, but have received insufficient attention. In supertree construction, however, the source data represent phylogenetic trees rather than primary character data. This presents several supertree-specific problems. In this paper, we examine several key data issues for supertree construction, including data set non-independence, taxonomy of terminal taxa, and the question of what constitutes a valid source tree. Throughout, we present our suggested protocol for source tree collection and manipulation based on our experiences in building a supertree of mammals. Other protocols and decisions are naturally possible. What is important is that all collection protocols are presented explicitly and address minimally the issues that we have identified.
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.
References
Barrett, M., Donoghue, M. J., and Sober, E. 1991. Against consensus. Systematic Zoology 40:486–493.
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.
Baum, B. R. and Ragan, M. A. 2004. The MRP method. In O. R. P. Bininda-Emonds (ed). Phylogenetic Supertrees: Combining Information to Reveal the Tree of Life, pp. 17–34. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.
Bininda-Emonds, O. R. P. 2000. Factors influencing phylogenetic inference: a case study using the mammalian carnivores. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 16:113–126.
Bininda-Emonds, O. R. P. In press. The phylogenetic position of the giant panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca): a historical consensus through supertree analysis. In D. G. Lindburg and K. Baragona (eds), Pandas: Biology and Conservation. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Bininda-Emonds, O. R. P. and Bryant, H. N. 1998. Properties of matrix representation with parsimony analyses. Systematic Biology 47:497–508.
Bininda-Emonds, O. R. P., Gittleman, J. L., and Purvis, A. 1999. Building large trees by combining phylogenetic information: a complete phylogeny of the extant Carnivora (Mammalia). Biological Reviews 74:143–175.
Bininda-Emonds, O. R. P., Gittleman, J. L., and Steel, M. A. 2002. The (super)tree of life: procedures, problems, and prospects. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 33:265–289.
Bininda-Emonds, O. R. P., Jones, K. E., Price, S. A., Grenyer, R., Cardillo, M., Habib, M., Purvis, A., and Gittleman, J. L. 2003. Supertrees are a necessary not-so-evil: a comment on Gatesy et al. Systematic Biology 52:724–729.
Bininda-Emonds, O. R. P. and Sanderson, M. J. 2001. Assessment of the accuracy of matrix representation with parsimony supertree construction. Systematic Biology 50:565–579.
Daniel, P. and Semple, C. 2004. A supertree algorithm for nested taxa. In O. R. P. Bininda Emonds (ed.), Phylogenetic Supertrees: Combining Information to Reveal the Tree of Life, pp. 151–171. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.
Daubin, V., Gouy, M., and Perrière, G. 2001. Bacterial molecular phylogeny using supertree approach. Genome Informatics 12:155–164.
Daubin, V., Gouy, M., and Perrière, G. 2002. A phylogenomic approach to bacterial phylogeny: evidence of a core of genes sharing a common history. Genome Research 12:1080–1090.
De Queiroz, A., Donoghue, M. J., and Kim, J. 1995. Separate versus combined analysis of phylogenetic evidence. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 26:657–681.
Gatesy, J., Matthee, C., Desalle, R., and Hayashi, C. 2002. Resolution of a supertree / supermatrix paradox. Systematic Biology 51:652–664.
Gatesy, J. and Springer, M. S. 2004. A critique of matrix representation with parsimony supertrees. In O. R. P. Bininda-Emonds (ed.), Phylogenetic Supertrees: Combining Information to Reveal the Tree of Life, pp. 369–388. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.
Jenner, R. A. 2001. Bilaterian phylogeny and uncritical recycling of morphological data sets. Systematic Biology 50:730–742.
Jones, K. E., Purvis, A., Maclarnon, A., Bininda-Emonds, O. R. P., and Simmons, N. B. 2002. A phylogenetic supertree of the bats (Mammalia: Chiroptera). Biological Reviews 77:223–259.
Kennedy, M. and Page, R. D. M. 2002. Seabird supertrees: combining partial estimates of procellariiform phylogeny. The Auk 119:88–108.
Kluge, A. G. 1989. A concern for evidence and a phylogenetic hypothesis of relationships among Epicrates (Boidae, Serpentes). Systematic Zoology 38:7–25.
Liu, F.-G. R., Miyamoto, M. M., Freire, N. P., Ong, P. Q., Tennant, M. R., Young, T. S., and Gugel, K. F. 2001. Molecular and morphological supertrees for eutherian (placental) mammals. Science 291:1786–1789.
Maddison, W. P. 1997. Gene trees in species trees. Systematic Biology 46:523–536.
Malia, M. J., Jr., Lipscomb, D. L., and Allard, M. W. 2003. The misleading effects of composite taxa in supermatrices. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 27:522–527.
Page, R. D. M. 2004. Taxonomy, supertrees, and the Tree of Life. In O. R. P. Bininda-Emonds (ed). Phylogenetic Supertrees: Combining Information to Reveal the Tree of Life, pp. 247–265. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.
Piel, W. H., Donoghue, M. J., and Sanderson, M. J. 2002. Tree BASE: a database of phylogenetic knowledge. In K. Shimura, K. L. Wilson, and D. Gordon (eds), To the Interoperable Catalogue of Life with Partners — Species 2000 Asia Oceania. Proceedings of 2nd International Workshop of Species 2000, pp. 41–47. National Institute of Environmental Studies (Research Report R-171–2002), Tsukuba, Japan. (http://www.nies.go.jp/kanko/kenkyu/pdf/r-171–2002.pdf)
Pisani, D., Yates, A. M., Langer, M. C., and Benton, M. J. 2002. A genus-level supertree of the Dinosauria. Proceedings of the Royal Society ofLondon B 269:915–921.
Purvis, A. 1995a. A composite estimate of primate phylogeny. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 348:405–421.
Purvis, A. 1995b. A modification to Baum and Ragan ’s method for combining phylogenetic trees. Systematic Biology 44:251–255.
Ragan, M. A. 1992. Phylogenetic inference based on matrix representation of trees. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 1:53–58.
Sanderson, M. J., Donoghue, M. J., Piel, W., and Eriksson, T. 1994. Tree BASE: a prototype database of phylogenetic analyses and an interactive tool for browsing the phylogeny of life. American Journal of Botany 81:183.
Springer, M. S. and De Jong, W. W. 2001. Phylogenetics. Which mammalian supertree to bark up? Science 291:1709–1711.
Stoner, C. J., Bininda-Emonds, O. R. P., and Caro, T. M. 2003. The adaptive significance of coloration in lagomorphs. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 79:309–328.
Wilkinson, M., Thorley, J. L., Pisani, D., Lapointe, F.J., and Mcinerney, J. O. 2004. Some desiderata for liberal supertrees. In O. R. P. Bininda-Emonds (ed.), Phylogenetic Supertrees: Combining Information to Reveal the Tree of Life, pp. 227–246. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.
Wyss, A. R. and Flynn, J. J. 1993. A phylogenetic analysis and definition of the Carnivora. In F. S. Szalay, M. J. Novacek, and M. C. McKenna (eds), Mammalian Phylogeny: Placentals, pp. 32–52. Springer-Verlag, New York.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2004 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bininda-Emonds, O.R.P., Jones, K.E., Price, S.A., Cardillo, M., Grenyer, R., Purvis, A. (2004). Garbage in, Garbage out. In: Bininda-Emonds, O.R.P. (eds) Phylogenetic Supertrees. Computational Biology, vol 4. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-2330-9_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-2330-9_13
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-2329-3
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-2330-9
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive