Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

N-trees as nestings: Complexity, similarity, and consensus

  • Authors Of Articles
  • Published:
Journal of Classification Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Interpreting a taxonomic tree as a set of objects leads to natural measures of complexity and similarity, and sets natural lower bounds on a consensus tree Interpretations differing as to the kind of objects constituting a tree lead to different measures and consensus Subset nesting is preferred over the clusters (strict consensus) and even the triads interpretations because of its superior expression of shared structure Algorithms for computing the complexity and similarity of trees, as well as a consensus index onto [0,1], are presented for this interpretation The “full consensus” is defined as the only tree which includes all the nestings shared in a profile of rival trees and whose clusters reflect only nestings shared in the profile The full consensus is proved to exist uniquely for each profile, and to equal the Adams consensus

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • ADAMS, E N III (1972), “Consensus Techniques and the Comparison of Taxonomic Trees,”Systematic Zoology, 21, 390–397

    Google Scholar 

  • DAY, W H E (1983), “The Role of Complexity in Comparing Classifications,”Mathematical Biosciences, 66, 97–114

    Google Scholar 

  • DAY, W H E (1985), “Optimal Algorithms for Comparing Trees with Labeled Leaves,”Journal of Classification, 2, 7–28

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • DAY, W H E, and MCMORRIS, F R (1985), “A Formalization of Consensus Index Methods,”Bulletin of Mathematical Biology, 47, 215–229

    Google Scholar 

  • ESTABROOK, G F, MCMORRIS, F R, and MEACHAM, C A (1985), “Comparison of Undirected Phylogenetic Trees Based on Subtrees of Four Evolutionary Units,”Systematic Zoology, 34, 193–200

    Google Scholar 

  • MARGUSH, T, and MCMORRIS, F R (1981), “Consensus N-Trees,”Bulletin of Mathematical Biology, 43, 239–244

    Google Scholar 

  • NELSON, G (1979), “Cladistic Analysis and Synthesis: Principles and Definitions, with a Historical Note on Adanson'sFamilles des Plantes (1763–1764),”Systematic Zoology, 28, 1–21

    Google Scholar 

  • NEUMANN, D A (1983), “Faithful Consensus Methods for n-Trees,”Matheamtical Biosciences, 63, 271–287

    Google Scholar 

  • ROBINSON, D F (1971), “Comparison of Labeled Trees with Valency Three,”Journal of Combinatorial Theory, 11, 105–119

    Google Scholar 

  • SOKAL, R R, and ROHLF, F J (1981), “Taxonomic Congruence in the Leptopodomorpha Re-examined,”Systematic Zoology, 30, 309–325

    Google Scholar 

  • STINEBRICKNER, R (1984), “s-Consensus Trees and Indices,”Bulletin of Mathematical Biology, 46, 923–935

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Adams Software, 2782 Waverley Street, 94306, Palo Alto, CA, USA

    Edward N. Adams III

Authors
  1. Edward N. Adams III
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

The author is grateful for the many helpful comments on presentation from Frances McA Adams, William H E Day, and Christopher A Meacham

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Adams, E.N. N-trees as nestings: Complexity, similarity, and consensus. Journal of Classification 3, 299–317 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01894192

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01894192

Keywords

Search

Navigation