Phylogenetic reconstruction, a critique
1998; Wiley; Volume: 47; Issue: 3 Linguagem: Francês
10.2307/1223585
ISSN1996-8175
Autores Tópico(s)Species Distribution and Climate Change
ResumoTAXONVolume 47, Issue 3 p. 681-693 Point of View Phylogenetic reconstruction, a critique Richard H. Zander, Richard H. Zander Buffalo Museum of Science, 1020 Humboldt Parkway, Buffalo, NY, 14211 U.S.A.Search for more papers by this author Richard H. Zander, Richard H. Zander Buffalo Museum of Science, 1020 Humboldt Parkway, Buffalo, NY, 14211 U.S.A.Search for more papers by this author First published: 01 August 1998 https://doi.org/10.2307/1223585Citations: 1AboutPDF 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 onEmailFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Literature cited 1Abbott, L. A., Bisby, F. A. & Rogers, D. J. 1985. Taxonomic analysis in biology: computers, models, and databases. New York. 2 *Anonymous [National Science Foundation] 1997. Award list for systematics [1997]. [http://www.nsf.gov]. Washington, D.C. 3Avise, J. C. 1994. Molecular markers, natural history and evolution. New York. 4Bernardo, J. M. & Smith, A. F. M. 1994. Bayesian theory. New York. 5Bohs, L. & Olmstead, R. G. 1997. Phylogenetic relationships in Solanum (Solanaceae) based on ndhF sequences. Syst. Bot. 22: 5–312. 6Bower, B. 1997. Null science: psychology's statistical status quo draws fire. Science News 151: 356–3357. 7Bralley, P. 1996. An introduction to molecular linguistics. BioScience 46: 146–3153. 8Bremer, K. 1988. The limits of amino acid sequence data in angiosperm phylogenetic reconstruction. Evolution 42: 796–3803. 9Carnap, R. 1962. Logical foundations of probability, ed. 2. Chicago. 10Doyle, J. J. 1992. Gene trees and species trees: molecular systematics as one-character taxonomy. Syst. Bot. 17: 144–3163. 11Faith, D. P. 1991. Cladistic permutation tests for monophyly and nonmonophylv. Syst Zool. 40: 366–3375. 12Farris, J. S. 1973. A probability model far inferring evolutionary trees. Syst. Zool. 22: 250–3256. 13Farris, J. S. 1977. Phylogenetic analysis under Dollo's Law. Syst. Zool. 26: 77–388. 14Farris, J. S. 1983. The logical basis of phylogenetic analysis. Pp. 7–336 in: N. I. Platnick & V. A. Funk (ed.), Advances in cladistics, 2. New York. 15Felsenstein, J. 1985. Confidence limits on phylogenies: an approach using the bootstrap. Evolution 39: 783–3791. 16Felsenstein, J. & Churchill, G. A. 1996. A hidden Markov model approach to variation among sites in rate of evolution. Molec. Biol. Evol. 13: 93–3104. 17Fischer, D. H. 1970. Historian's fallacies: toward a logic of historical thought. New York. 18Frank, H. & Althoen, S. C. 1994. Statistics: concepts and applications. Cambridge. 19Goldman, N. 1990. Maximum likelihood inference of phylogenetic trees, with special reference to a Poisson Process Model of DNA substitution and to parsimony analyses. Syst. Zool. 39: 345–3361. 20Harper, C. W. 1979. A Bayesian probability view of phylogenetic systematics. Syst. Zool. 28: 547–3553. 21Heijerman, T. 1990. GENESIS: a simulation model of phylogeny. 2. A comparative study based on simulation experiments. Z. Zool. Syst. Evolutionsforsch. 28: 81–393. 22Heijerman, T. 1997. Adequacy of numerical taxonomic methods: why not be a pheneticist? Syst. Biol. 21: 309–3319. 23Hemple, C. G. 1965. Aspects of scientific explanation. New York. 24Hendry, R. 1996. Realism. Nov. 27, 1996. [http://www.dur.ac.ukTdflOwww/modules/philsci/PHILSCI.htm]. Durham, U.K. 25Huelsenbeck, J. P. & Crandall, K. A. 1997. Phylogeny estimation and hypothesis testing using maximum likelihood. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 28: 437–3466. 26Huelsenbeck, J. P. & Rannala, B. 1997. Phylogenetic methods come of age: testing hypotheses in an evolutionary context. Science 276: 227–3232. 27Hull, D. L. 1974. Philosophy of biological science. Englewood Cliffs, NJ. 28Jefferys, W. H. & Berger, J. O. 1992. Ockham's razor and Bayesian analysis. Amer. Sci. 80: 64–372. 29Kluge, A. G. 1989. A concern for evidence and a phylogenetic hypothesis of relationships among Epicrates (Boidae, Serpentes). Syst. Zool. 38: 7–325. 30Kluge, A. G. 1997. Testability and the refutation and corroboration of cladistic hypotheses. Cladistics 13: 81–396. 31Kluge, A. G. & Farris, J. S. 1969. Quantitative phyletics and the evolution of anurans. Syst. Zool. 18: 1–332. 32Lyons-Weiler, J., Hoelzer, G. A. & Tausch, R. J. 1996. Relative apparent synapomorphy analysis (RASA) I: The statistical measurement of phylogenetic signal. Molec. Biol. Evol. 13: 749–3757. 33Martins, E. P. 1994. Estimating rates of character change from comparative data. Amer. Naturalist 144: 193–3209. 34Mau, B., Newton, M. A. & Larget, B. 1997. Bayesian phylogenetic inference via Markov chain Monte Carlo methods. Molec. Biol. Evol. 14: 717–3724. 35Milinkovitch, M. C., LeDuc, R. G., Adachi, J., Farnir, F., Georges, M. & Hasegawa, M. 1996. Effects of character weighting and species sampling on phylogeny reconstruction: a case study based on DNA sequence data in cetaceans. Genetics 144: 1817–31833. 36Mises, R. von, 1957. Probability, statistics and truth, ed. 2 [English ed. transl. H. Geiringer. Dover Edition.] New York. 37Naylor, G. J. P. & Brown, W. M. 1997. Structural biology and phylogenetic estimation. Nature 388: 527–3528. 38Nei, M. & Takezaki, N. 1996. The root of the phylogenetic tree of human populations. Molec. Biol. Evol. 13: 170–3177. 39Olmstead, R. G. & Palmer, J. D. 1997. Implications for the phylogeny, classification, and biogeography of Solanum from cpDNA restriction site variation. Syst. Bot. 22: 19–329. 40Pap, A. 1962. An introduction to the philosophy of science. New York. 41Pfaffenberger, R. C. & Patterson, J. H. 1987. Statistical methods for business and economics, ed. 3. Homewood, IL. 42Philippe, H., Lecointre, G., Hoc Lanh Vân Lê & Le Guyader, H. 1996. A critical study of homoplasy in molecular data with the use of a morphologically based cladogram, and its consequences for character weighting. Molec. Biol. Evol. 13: 1174–31186. 43Rannala, B. & Yang, Z. 1996. Probability distribution of molecular evolutionary trees: a new method of phylogenetic inference. J. Molec. Evol. 43: 304–3311. 44Rogers, D. J., Fleming, H. S. & Estabrook, G. 1967. Use of computers in studies of taxonomy and evolution. Pp. 169–3196 in: T. Dobzhansky, M. K. Hecht & W. C. Steere (ed.), Evolutionary biology, 1. New York. 45Rolf, H. L. & Williams, G. 1991. Finite mathematics, ed. 2. Dubuque, IA. 46Ross, S. M. 1997. Introduction to probability models, ed. 6. San Diego. 47Salmon, W. C. 1971. Statistical explanation and statistical relevance. Pittsburgh, PA. 48Sanderson, M. J. 1989. Confidence limits on phytogenies: the bootstrap revisited. Cladistics 5: 113–3129. 49Sanderson, M. J. 1993. Reversibility in evolution: a maximum likelihood approach to character gain/loss bias in phytogenies. Evolution 47: 236–3252. 50Schöniger, M. & Haeseler, A. von, 1995. Performance of the maximum likelihood, neighbor joining and maximum parsimony methods when sequence sites are not independent. Syst. Biol. 44: 533–3547. 51Scotland, R. W. 1997. Parsimony neither maximizes congruence nor minimizes incongruence or homoplasy. Taxon 46: 743–3746. 52Seberg, O., Petersen, G. & Baden, C. 1997. Taxonomic incongruence - a case in point from plants. Cladistics 13: 180. 53Shenton, L. R. & Bowman, K. O. 1977. Maximum likelihood estimation in small samples. New York. 54Siddall, M. & Wenzel, J. 1997. Random cladistics: new frontiers in molecular phylogenetics or old hat? Cladistics 13: 180. 55Sites, J. W., Davis, S. K., Guerra, T., Iverson, J. B. & Snell, H. L. 1996. Character congruence and phylogenetic signal in molecular and morphological data sets: a case study in the living iguanas (Squamata, Iguanidae). Molec. Biol. Evol. 13: 1087–31105. 56Sober, E. 1975. Simplicity. Oxford. 57Sober, E. 1983. Parsimony methods in systematics. Pp. 37–347 in: N. I. Platnick & V. A Funk (ed.), Advances in cladistics, 2: 37-47. 58Sober, E. 1986. Parsimony and character weighting. Cladistics 2: 28–342. 59Swofford, D. L. & Maddison, W. P. 1992. Parsimony, character-state reconstructions, and evolutionary inferences. Pp. 186–3223 in: R. Mayden (ed.), Systematics, historical ecology and North American freshwater fishes. Stanford. 60Winkler, R. L. 1972. An introduction to Bayesian inference and decision. New York. 61Wittgenstein, L. 1961. Tractatus logico-philosophicus. London. 62Yang, Z. 1994. Statistical properties of the maximum likelihood method of phylogenetic estimation and comparison with distance matrix methods. Syst. Biol. 43: 329–3342. 63Yang, Z. 1996. Maximum-likelihood models for combined analyses of multiple sequence data. J. Molec. Evol. 42: 587–3596. 64Yang, Z. 1997. How often do wrong models produce better phytogenies? Molec. Biol. Evol 14: 105–3108. 65Yang, Z. & Rannala, B. 1997. Bayesian phylogenetic inference using DNA sequences: a Markov chain Monte Carlo method. Molec. Biol. Evol. 14: 717–3724. 66Zander, R. H. 1998. A phylogrammatic evolutionary analysis of the moss genus Didymodon in North America North Of Mexico. Bull. Buffalo Soc. Nat. Sci. 36: 81–3115. Citing Literature Volume47, Issue3August 1998Pages 681-693 ReferencesRelatedInformation
Referência(s)