Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Molecular and morphological datasets have similar numbers of relevant phylogenetic characters

2004; Wiley; Volume: 53; Issue: 4 Linguagem: Inglês

10.2307/4135567

1996-8175

Michael S. Y. Lee,

Plant Taxonomy and Phylogenetics

TAXONVolume 53, Issue 4 p. 1019-1022 Points of ViewFree Access Molecular and morphological datasets have similar numbers of relevant phylogenetic characters Michael S.Y. Lee, Michael S.Y. Lee [email protected] School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide, Adelaide SA 5005, Australia Earth Sciences Section, South Australian Museum, North Terrace, Adelaide SA, 5000 AustraliaSearch for more papers by this author Michael S.Y. Lee, Michael S.Y. Lee [email protected] School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide, Adelaide SA 5005, Australia Earth Sciences Section, South Australian Museum, North Terrace, Adelaide SA, 5000 AustraliaSearch for more papers by this author First published: 01 November 2004 https://doi.org/10.2307/4135567Citations: 11AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Literature Cited Baker, R. H., Yu, X. & DeSalle, R. 1998. Assessing the relative contribution of molecular and morphological characters in simultaneous analysis trees. Molec. Phylog. Evol. 9: 427– 136. Bremer, K 1988. The limits of amino acid sequence data in angiosperm phylogenetic reconstruction. Evolution 42: 795– 803. Farris, J. S., Källersjö, M. & de Laet, J. E. 2001. Branch lengths do not indicate support—even in maximum likelihood. Cladistics 17: 298– 299. Givnish, T. J. & Sytsma, K J. 1997. Consistency, characters, and the likelihood of correct phylogenetic inference. Molec. Phylog. Evol. 7: 320– 330. Hillis, D. M. 1987. Molecular versus morphological approaches to systematics. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 18: 23– 12. Jenner, R. A. 2004. Accepting partnership by submission? Morphological phylogenetics in a molecular millenium. Syst. Biol. 53: 333– 342. Kress, W. J., Prince, L. M., Hahn, W. J. & Zimmer, E. A. 2001. Unravelling the evolutionary radiation of the families of the Zingiberales using morphological and molecular evidence. Syst. Biol. 50: 926– 944. Lambkin, C. L., Yeates, D. K. & Greathead, D. J. 2003. An evolutionary radiation of beeflies in semi-arid Australia: systematics of the Exoprosopini (Diptera: Bombyliidae). Invert. Syst. 17: 735– 891. Lee, M. S. Y. 2004. The molecularisation of taxonomy. Invert. Syst. 18: 1– 6. Lee, M. S. Y. & Scanlon, J. D. 2002. Snake phylogeny based on osteology, soft anatomy and behaviour. Biol. Rev. 77: 333– 401. Poe, S. & Wiens, J. J. 2000. Character selection and the methodology of morphological phylogenetics. Pp. 20– 36 in: J. J. Wiens (ed.), Phylogenetic Analysis of Morpho-logial Data. Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D.C. Ruta, M., Coates, M. I. & Quicke, D. L. J. 2003. Early tetra- pod relationships revisited. Biol. Rev. 78: 251– 345. Scotland, R. W., Olmstead, R. G. & Bennett, J. R. 2003. Phylogeny reconstruction: the role of morphology. Syst. Biol. 52: 539– 548. Swofford, D. L. 2000. PAUP*. Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony (*and Other Methods). Version 4. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts. G. P. Wagner (ed.). 2001. The Character Concept in Evolutionary Biology. Academic Press, San Diego. Yeates, D. 1992. Why remove autapomorphies? Cladistics 8: 387– 389. Citing Literature Volume53, Issue4November 2004Pages 1019-1022 ReferencesRelatedInformation