Abstract
The construction of supertrees using matrix representation with parsimony (MRP) is equivalent operationally to the construction of cladograms using cladistic analysis of character data. However, the validity of MRP as a phylogenetic method has been questioned because the data used to construct MRP supertrees are the topologies of trees rather than character data. The consistency of MRP analysis with the following cladistic principles is evaluated: 1) only synapomorphies provide evidence for cladistic relationships, 2) ad hoc hypotheses are to be minimized in the generation of cladistic hypotheses, and 3) data used in the inference of cladistic relationships must be independent of each other. To be consistent with these principles, MRP analysis must 1) be based on source trees that were generated using cladistic analyses of character data, 2) weight the input data to account for the relative support for individual nodes on source trees and to eliminate inappropriate biases associated with variation in tree size, 3) be based on source trees with high consistency indices, and 4) be based on source trees that provide independent evidence for relationships. Achieving these criteria is extremely difficult, and all published MRP analyses fail to meet one or more of these conditions. Although MRP supertrees might be justified on pragmatic grounds, these trees should be considered a heuristic synthesis of hierarchical information, rather than a rigorous phylogenetic analysis of the included taxa.
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
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. 1993. Reply to A.G. Rodrigo ’s “A comment on Baum ’s method for combining phylogenetic trees”. Taxon 42:637–640.
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. 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., 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.
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.
Burleigh, J. G., Eulenstein, O., Fernández-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.
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.
De Pinna, M. C. C. 1991. Concepts and tests of homology in the cladistic paradigm. Cladistics 7:367–394.
Farris, J. S. 1983. The logical basis of phylogenetic analysis. In N. I. Platnick and V. A. Funk (eds), Advances in Cladistics, volume 2, pp. 7–36, Columbia University Press, New York.
Farris, J. S., Kluge, A. G., and Eckhardt, M. J. 1970. A numerical approach to phylogenetic systematics. Systematic Zoology 19:172–191.
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.
Gittleman, J. L., Jones, K. E., and Price, S. A. 2004. Supertrees: using complete phylogenies in comparative biology. In O. R. P. Bininda-Emonds (ed.), Phylogenetic Supertrees: Combining Information to Reveal the Tree of Life, pp. 439–460. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.
Goloboff, P. A. and Pol, D. 2002. Semi-strict supertrees. Cladistics 18:514–525.
Hennig, W. 1966. Phylogenetic Systematics. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.
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. J. 1989. A concern for evidence and a phylogenetic hypothesis of relationships among Epicrates (Boidae, Serpentes). Systematic Zoology 3 8:7–25.
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.
Moore, B. R., Chan, K. M. A., and Donoghue, M. J. 2004. Detecting diversification rate variation in supertrees. In O. R. P. Bininda-Emonds (ed.), Phylogenetic Supertrees: Combining Information to Reveal the Tree of Life, pp. 487–533. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.
Pisani, D. and Wilkinson, M. 2002. Matrix representation with parsimony, taxonomic congruence, and total evidence. Systematic Biology 51:151–155.
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. 1995. A composite estimate of primate phylogeny. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 348:405–421.
Ragan, M. A. 1992. Phylogenetic inference based on matrix representation of trees. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 1:53–58.
Rodrigo, A. G. 1993. A comment on Baum ’s method for combining phylogenetic trees. Taxon 42:631–636.
Rodrigo, A. G. 1996. On combining cladograms. Taxon 45:267–274.
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.
Salamin, N., Hodkinson, T. R., and Savolainen, V. 2002. Building supertrees: an empirical assessment using the grass family (Poaceae). Systematic Biology 51:134–150.
Sanderson, M. J., Purvis, A., and Henze, C. 1998. Phylogenetic supertrees: assembling the trees of life. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 13:105–109.
Slowinski, J. B. and Page, R. D. M. 1999. How should species phylogenies be inferred from sequence data? Systematic Biology 48:814–825.
Springer, M. S. and De Jong, W. W. 2001. Which mammalian supertree to bark up? Science 291:1709–1711.
Wilkinson, M. 1994. Common cladistic information and its consensus representation; reduced Adams and reduced cladistic consensus trees and profiles. Systematic Biology 43:343–368.
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. Chapman-Hall, London.
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.
Williams, D. M. 1994. Combining trees and combining data. Taxon 43:449–453.
Williams, D. M. 1996. Characters and cladograms. Taxon 45:275–283.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2004 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bryant, H.N. (2004). The Cladistics of Matrix Representation with Parsimony Analysis. 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_17
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-2330-9_17
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-2329-3
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-2330-9
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive