Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Taxonomy, Supertrees, and the Tree of Life

  • Chapter
Phylogenetic Supertrees

Part of the book series: Computational Biology ((COBO,volume 4))

Abstract

Some of the main practical impediments to the application of supertrees in large-scale phylogenetic analysis are inconsistent use of taxonomic names, trees incorporating taxa of different ranks, and poor taxonomic overlap between different phylogenetic studies. This chapter considers these problems and suggests some solutions. The notion of a “classification graph” is introduced to test for consistency between higher-level classifications. One strategy for coping with poor taxonomic overlap is to use a constraint tree that specifies some taxonomic groups that must appear in the supertree.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Adams, E. M., III. 1986. N-trees as nestings: complexity, similarity, and consensus. Journal of Classification 3:299–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aho, A. V., Sagiv, Y., Szymanski, T. G., and Ullman, J. D. 1981. Inferring a tree from lowest common ancestors with an application to the optimization of relational expressions. Siam Journal of Computing 10:405–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alexe, G., Alexe, S., Foldes, S., Hammer, P. L., and Simeone, B. 2000. Consensus Algorithms for the Generation of all Maximal Bicliques. Technical Report 2000–14, Dimacs, Rutgers University, Piscataway, Nj 08854–8018, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrett, M., Donoghue, M. J., and Sober, E. 1991. Against consensus. Systematic Zoology 40:486–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bininda-Emonds, O. R. P., Jones, K. E., Price, S. A., Cardillo, M., Grenyer, R., and Purvis, A. 2004. Garbage in, garbage out: data issues in supertree construction. In O. R. P. Bininda-Emonds (ed). Phylogenetic Supertrees: Combining Information to Reveal the Tree ofLife, pp. 267–280. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bininda-Emonds, O. R. P. and Sanderson, M. J. 2001. Assessment of the accuracy of matrix representation with parsimony analysis supertree construction. Systematic Biology 50:565–579.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bryant, D. 1997. Building Trees, Hunting for Trees, and Comparing Trees: Theory and Methods in Phylogenetic Analysis. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Mathematics, University of Canterbury.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryant, D. 2003. A classification of consensus methods for phylogenetics. In M. F. Janowitz, F.-J. Lapointe, F. R. McMorris, B. Mirkin, and F.S. Roberts (eds), Bioconsensus, Dimacs: Series in Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science, volume 61, pp. 163–183. American Mathematical Society-Dimacs, Providence, Ri.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burleigh, J. G., Eulenstein, O., Fernandez-Baca, D., and Sanderson, M. J. 2004. MRF supertrees. In O. R. P. Bininda-Emonds (ed). Phylogenetic Supertrees: Combining Information to Reveal the Tree of Life, pp. 65–85. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, D., Eulenstein, O., Fernandez-Baca, D., and Sanderson, M. J. 2002. Supertrees by Flipping. Technical Report TR02–01, Department of Computer Science, Iowa State University, 226 Atanasoff Hall, Ames, Ia 50011–1040, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chu, P. C. 1995. Phylogenetic reanalysis of Strauch ’s osteological data set for the charadriiformes. Condor 97:174–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coddington, J. A. 1990. Ontogeny and homology in the male palpus of orb-weaving spiders and their relatives, with comments on phylogeny (Araneoclada: Araneoidea, Deinopoidea). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 496:1–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Constantinescu, M. and Sankoff, D. 1986. Tree enumeration modulo a consensus. Journal of Classification 3:349–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cormen, T. H., Leiserson, C. E., and Rivest, R. L. 1990. Introduction to Algorithms. The Mit Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cotton, J. A. and Page, R. D. M. 2002. Going nuclear: vertebrate phylogeny and gene family evolution reconciled. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 269: 1555–1561.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cotton, J. A. and Page, R. D. M. 2004. Tangled trees from molecular markers: reconciling conflict between phylogenies to build molecular supertrees. In O. R. P. Bininda-Emonds (ed.), Phylogenetic Supertrees: Combining Information to Reveal the Tree of Life, pp. 107–125. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gatesy, J., Matthee, C., Desa L L E R., and Hayashi, C. 2002. Resolution of a supertree / supermatrix paradox. Systematic Biology 51:652 – 664.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gatesy, J., O’grady, P., and Baker, R. H. 1999. Corroboration among data sets in simultaneous analysis: hidden support for phylogenetic relationships among higher level artiodactyl taxa. Cladistics 15:271–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goloboff, P. A. and Pol, D. 2002. Semi-strict supertrees. Cladistics 18:514–525.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lauk, C. 2002. An Attempt for a Genus-level Supertree of Birds. B.Sc. (Hons) Project Report, Deeb, Ibls, University of Glasgow.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Miyamoto, M. M. 1985. Consensus classifications and general cladograms. Cladistics 1:186–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Novacek, M. J. 2001. Mammalian phylogeny: genes and supertrees. Current Biology 11:R573-R575.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Page, R. D. M. 2002. Modified mincut supertrees. In R. Guigó and D. Gusfield (eds), Algorithms in Bioinformatics, Second International Workshop, Wabi 2002, Rome, Italy, September 17–21, 2002, Proceedings, pp. 537–552. Springer, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piel, W. H., Donoghue, M. J., and Sanderson, M. J. 2002. TreeBASE: 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)

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollock, D. D., Zwickl, D. J., McGuire, J. A., and Hillis, D. M. 2002. Increased taxonomic sampling is advantageous for phylogenetic inference. Systematic Biology 51:664–671.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ragan, M. A. 1992. Phylogenetic inference based on matrix representation of trees. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 1:53–58.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Roshan, U., Moret, B. M. E., Williams, T. L., and Warnow, T. 2004. Performance of supertree methods on various data set decompositions. In O. R. P. Bininda-Emonds (ed.), Phylogenetic Supertrees: Combining Information to Reveal the Tree of Life, pp. 301–328. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, H. A. and Rodrigo, A. G. 2004. An assessment of matrix representation with compatibility in supertree construction. In O. R. P. Bininda-Emonds (ed.), Phylogenetic Supertrees: Combining Information to Reveal the Tree of Life, pp. 35–63. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanderson, M. J. 1989. Confidence limits on phylogenies: the bootstrap revisited. Cladistics 5:113–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanderson, M. J., Purvis, A., and Henze, C. 1998. Phylogenetic supertrees: assembling the trees of life. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 13:105–109.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Semple, C. and Steel, M. 2000. A supertree method for rooted trees. Discrete Applied Mathematics 105:147–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slowinski, J. B. and Page, R. D. M. 1999. How should species phylogenies be inferred from sequence data? Systematic Biology 48:814–825.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Steel, M. 1992. The complexity of reconstructing trees from qualitative characters and subtrees. Journal of Classification 9:91–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swofford, D. L. 2002. Paup*. Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony (*and Other Methods). Version4. Sinauer, Sunderland, Massachusetts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson, M., Thorley, J. L., Littlewood, D. T. J., and Bray, R. A. 2001. Towards a phylogenetic supertree of Platyhelminthes? In D. T. J. Littlewood and R. A. Bray (eds), Interrelationships of the Platyhelminthes, pp. 292–301. Taylor and Francis, London.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Roderic D. M. Page
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Lehrstuhl für Tierzucht, Technische Universität München, Freising- Weihenstephan, Germany

    Olaf R. P. Bininda-Emonds

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2004 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Page, R.D.M. (2004). Taxonomy, Supertrees, and the Tree of Life. 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_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-2330-9_12

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-2329-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-2330-9

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation