Advertisement

The Causes of Character Incompatibility

  • George F. Estabrook
Part of the NATO ASI Series book series (volume 1)

Abstract

A character state tree can be construed as an hypothesis about evolutionary relationships, and as such it can be true or false. First I will make clear what assertions are hypothesized by a character state tree. These are the ways in which character state trees can be false. Then I will review how to determine whether two character state trees are logically compatible, and in cases when they are not, how to tell what assertions hypothesized by them are in contradiction. Finally, I will discuss how information revealed in the tests for compatibility of two character state trees can suggest ways to revise character state trees for subsequent re-evaluation.

Keywords

Character State Phylogenetic Reconstruction Extant Species Perennial Shrub Fruit Wing 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Camin, J. H. and R. R. Sokal. 1965. A method for deducing branching sequences in phylogeny. Evolution 19: 311–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cartmill, M. 1981. Hypothesis testing and phylogenetic reconstruction. Z. zool. Syst. 19: 73–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Estabrook, G. F. and F. R. McMorris. 1980. When is one estimate of evolutionary relationships a refinement of another ? J. Math. Biol. 10: 367–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Estabrook, G. F. and C. A. Meacham. 1979. How to determine the compatibility of undirected character state trees. Math. Biosci. 46:251–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Estabrook, G. F. 1978. Some concepts for the estimation of evolutionary relationships in systematic botany. Syst. Bot. 3: 146–158Google Scholar
  6. Estabrook, G. F. and F. R. McMorris. 1977. When are two qualitative taxonomic characters compatible ? J. Math. Biol. 4: 195–200PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Estabrook, G. F. and L. Landrum. 1975. A simple test for the possible simultaneous evolutionary divergence of two amino acid positions. Taxon: 25 609–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fitch, W. M. 1975. Toward finding the tree of maximum parsimony. pages 189–220 in G. F. Estabrook, ed. The Eighth International Conference on Numerical Taxonomy. W. H. Freeman, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  9. Gates, B. 1982. A Monograph of Banisteriopsis and Diplopterys, Malpighiaceae. Flora Neotropica 30: 1–237Google Scholar
  10. Gottlieb, O. R. 1980. Micromolecular systematics principles and practice. pages 329–352 in F. A. Bisby, J. G. Vaughan, and C. A. Wright, eds. Chemosystematics Principles and Practice. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. Hennig, W. 1966. Phylogenetic Systematics. (Transl. from German by D. D. Davis and R. Zangerl) U. of 1ll. Press, Urbana, ILGoogle Scholar
  12. Le Quesne, W. J. 1969. A method of selection of characters in numerical taxonomy. Syst. Zool. 18: 201–205Google Scholar
  13. Lyell, C. 1838. Elements of Geology. LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. Meacham, C. A. 1982. Theoretical and computational considerations of the compatibility of qualitative taxonomic characters, this volume.Google Scholar
  15. Meacham, C. A. 1980. Phylogeny of the Berberidaceae with an evaluation of classifications. Syst. Bot. 5: 149–172Google Scholar
  16. Popper, K. R. 1965. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Harper Torchbooks, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Wilson, O. E. 1965. A consistency test for phylogenies based on contemporaneous species. Syst. Zool. 14: 214–220Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • George F. Estabrook
    • 1
  1. 1.University Herbarium University of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations