Abstract
Strict and semi-strict supertree construction methods can be used to summarize groups that are consistent with all source phylogenies. Other procedures, such as Matrix Representation with Parsimony (MRP), arbitrate conflicts among incompatible source trees, and can provide more topological resolution than strict and semi-strict methods. MRP has been used to construct most of the large supertrees that have been published to date. We review some of the inherent problems with MRP and other supertree methods, point out specific difficulties in previously published Mrp-supertree analyses, question some of the possible advantages of supertrees, and suggest that supermatrix analyses of character data should provide the primary framework for comparative biology in the 21st century.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Baker, R. H. and Desalle, R. 1997. Multiple sources of character information and the phylogeny of Hawaiian drosophilids. Systematic Biology 46:654–673.
Barrett, M., Donoghue, M. J., and Sober, E. 1991. Against consensus. Systematic Zoology 40:486–493.
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.
Bininda-Emonds, O. R. P. 2003. Novel versus unsupported clades: assessing the qualitative support for clades in MRP supertrees. Systematic Biology 52:839–848.
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., and Sanderson, M. J. 2001. Assessment of the accuracy of matrix representation with parsimony analysis supertree construction. Systematic Biology 50:565–579.
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 Review 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 of Life, pp. 267–280. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.
Bookstein, F. L. 1994. Can biometrical shape be a homologous character? In B. Hall (ed.), Homology: The Hierarchical Basis of Comparative Biology, pp. 198–227, Academic Press, New York.
Bremer, K. 1994. Branch support and tree stability. Cladistics 10:295–304.
Bryant, H. N. 2004. The cladistics of matrix representation with parsimony analysis. In O. R. P. Bininda-Emonds (ed). Phylogenetic Supertrees: Combining Information to Reveal the Tree of Life, pp. 353–368. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.
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.
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.
Daubin, V., Gouy, M., and Perriere, G. 2001. Bacterial molecular phylogeny using supertree approach. Genome Informatics 12:155–164.
Farris, J. S. 1983. The logical basis of phylogenetic analysis. In N. Platnick and V. Funk (eds.), Advances in Cladistics, volume 2, pp. 7–36, Columbia University Press, New York.
Farris, J. S., Källersjö, M., and Delaet, J. 2001. Branch lengths do not indicate support-even in maximum likelihood. Cladistics 17:298–299.
Felsenstein, J. 1985. Confidence limits on phylogenies: an approach using the bootstrap. Evolution 39:783–791.
Gatesy, J., Milinkovitch, M. C., Waddell, V., and Stanhope, M. S. 1999. Stability of cladistic relationships between Cetacea and higher-level artiodactyl taxa. Systematic Biology 48:6–20.
Gatesy, J., Matthee, C., Desalle, R., and Hayashi, C. Y. 2002. Resolution of a supertree / supermatrix paradox. Systematic Biology 51:652–664.
Gittleman, J. L. and Purvis, A. 1998. Body size and species richness in carnivores and primates. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 265:113–119.
Goloboff, P. A., and Pol, D. 2002. Semi-strict supertrees. Cladistics 18:514–525.
Hollar, L. J. and Springer M. S. 1997. Old World fruitbat phylogeny: evidence for convergent evolution and an endemic African clade. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United State ofAmerica 94:5716–5721.
Hoofer, S. R. and Van Den Bussche, R. A. 2001. Phylogenetic relationships of plecotine bats and allies based on mitochondrial ribosomal sequences. Journal of Mammalogy 82:131–137.
Hoover, A. 2001. A first: a (nearly) complete road map for the evolution of placental mammals. University ofFlorida News, March1.
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 Review 77:223–259.
Källersjö, M., Farris, J. S., Chase, M. W., Bremer, B., Fay, M. F., Humphries, C. J., Peterson, G., Seberg, O., and Bremer, K. 1998. Simultaneous parsimony jackknife analysis of 2538 rbcL DNA sequences reveals support for major clades of green plants, land plants, seed plants, and flowering plants. Plant Systematics and Evolution 213:259–287.
Kennedy, M. and Page, R. D. M. 2002. Seabird supertrees: combining partial estimates of procellariiform phylogeny. The Auk 119:88–108.
Kluge, A. G. 1989. A concern for evidence and a phylogenetic hypothesis of relationships among Epicrates (Boidae, Serpentes). Systematic Zoology 38:7–25.
Lapointe, F.-J. and Levasseur, C. 2004. Everything you always wanted to know about the average consensus, and more. In O. R. P. Bininda-Emonds (ed.), Phylogenetic Supertrees: Combining Information to Reveal the Tree of Life, pp. 87–105. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.
Lee, M. S. Y. and Hugall, A. F. 2003. Partitioned likelihood support and the evaluation of data set conflict. Systematic Biology 52:15–22.
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.
Maddison, W. P. 1997. Gene trees in species trees. Systematic Biology 46:523–536.
Madsen, O., Scally, M., Douady, C. J., Kao, D. J., Debry, R. W., Adkins, R., Amrine, H. M., Stanhope, M. J., De Jong, W. W., and Springer, M. S. 2001. Parallel adaptive radiations in two major clades of placental mammals. Nature 409:610–614.
Marks, J., Schmid, C. W., and Sarich V. M. 1988. DNA hybridization as a guide to phylogeny: relations of the Hominoidea. Journal of Human Evolution 17:769–786.
Miyamoto, M. M. 1985. Consensus cladograms and general classifications. Cladistics 1:186–189.
Miyamoto, M. M. and Fitch, W. M. 1995. Testing species phylogenies and phylogenetic methods with congruence. Systematic Biology 44:64–76.
Murphy, W. J., Eizrik, E., Johnson, W. E., Zhang, Y. P., Ryder, O. A. and O’Brien, S. J. 2001. Molecular phylogenetics and the origins of placental mammals. Nature 409:614–618.
Novacek, M. J. 1980. Phylogenetic analysis of the chiropteran auditory region. In D. Wilson and A. Gardner (eds), Proceedings of the Fifth International Bat Research Conference, pp. 317–330. Texas Tech. University, USA.
Patterson, C. 1982. Morphological characters and homology. In A. Joysey and A. Friday (eds), Problems ofPhylogenetic Reconstruction, pp. 21–74. Academic Press, London.
Piaggio-Talice, R., Burleigh, J. G., and Eulenstein, O. 2004. Quartet supertrees. In O. R. P. Bininda-Emonds (ed). Phylogenetic Supertrees: Combining Information to Reveal the Tree of Life, pp. 173–191. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.
Pisani, D., Yates, A., Langer, M., and Benton, M. 2001. A genus-level supertree of the Dinosauria. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B 269:915–921.
Pisani, D. and Wilkinson, M. 2002. Matrix representation with parsimony, taxonomic congruence, and total evidence. Systematic Biology 51:151–155.
Purvis, A. 1995a. A composite estimate of primate phylogeny. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society ofLondon B 348:405–421.
Purvis, A. 1995b. A modification to Baum and Ragan ’s method for combining phylogenetic trees. Systematic Biology 44:251–255.
Purvis, A., Nee, S., and Harvey, P. H. 1995. Macroevolutionary inferences from primate phylogeny. Proceedings of the Royal Society ofLondon B 260:329–333.
Ragan, M. A. 1992. Phylogenetic inference based on matrix representation of trees. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 1:53–58.
De Queiroz, K. and Poe, S. 2001. Philosophy and phylogenetic inference: a comparison of likelihood and parsimony methods in the context of Karl Popper ’s writings on corroboration. Systematic Biology 50:305–321.
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.
Ronquist, F. 1996. Matrix representation of trees, redundancy, and weighting. Systematic Biology 45:247–253.
Salamin, N., Hodkinson, T. R., and Savolainen, V. 2002. Building supertrees: an empirical assessment using the grass family (Poaceae). Systematic Biology 51:136–150.
Sanderson, M. J., Purvis, A., and Henze, C. 1998. Phylogenetic supertrees: assembling the trees of life. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 13:105–109.
Semple, C. and Steel, M. 2000. A supertree method for rooted trees. Discrete Applied Mathematics 105:147–158.
Sibley, C. G. and Ahlquist, J. E. 1990. Phylogeny and Classification of Birds: a Study in Molecular Evolution. Yale University Press, New Haven.
Simmons, N. B. and Geisler, J. H. 1998. Phylogenetic relationships of Icaronycteris, Archaeonycteris, Hassianycteris, and Palaeochiropteryx to extant bat lineages, with comments on the evolution of echolocation and foraging strategies in Microchiroptera. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 235:1–82.
Slowinski, J. B. and Page, R. D. M. 1999. How should species phylogenies be inferred from sequence data? Systematic Biology 48:814–825.
Soltis, P. S., Soltis, D. E., and Chase, M. W. 1999. Angiosperm phylogeny inferred from multiple genes as a tool for comparative biology. Nature 402:402–404.
Springer, M. S. and De Jong, W. W. 2001. Phylogenetics. Which mammalian supertree to bark up? Science 291:1709–1711.
Steel, M. A. 1992. The complexity of reconstructing trees from qualitative characters and subtrees. Journal of Classification 9:91–116.
Swiderski, D. L., Zelditch, M. L., and Fink, W. L. 1998. Why morphometrics is not special: coding quantitative data for phylogenetic analysis. Systematic Biology 47:508–519.
Swofford, D. L. 1998. Pa Up *. Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony (*and Other Methods). Version 4. Sinauer, Sunderland, Massachusetts.
Teeling, E. C., Scally, M., Kao, D. J., Romagnoli, M. L., Springer, M. S., and Stanhope, M. J. 2000. Molecular evidence regarding the origin of echolocation and flight in bats. Nature 403:188–192.
Van Den Bussche, R. A. and Hoofer, S. R. 2001. Evaluating monophyly of Nataloidea (Chiroptera) with mitochondrial DNA sequences. Journal of Mammalogy 82:320–327.
Van De Peer, Y. and De Wachter, R. 1997. Evolutionary relationships among the eukaryotic crown taxa taking into account site-to-site rate variation in 18S rRNA. Journal of Molecular Evolution 45:619–630.
Wilkinson, M., Thorley, J. L., Littlewood, D. T. J., and Bray, R. A. 2001. Towards a phylogenetic supertree of Platyhelminthes? In D. Littlewood and R. Bray (eds), Interrelationships of the Platyhelminthes, pp. 292–301. Chapman-Hall, London.
Wilkinson, M., Lapointe, F.-J., and Gower, D. J. 2003. Branch lengths and support Systematic Biology 52:127–130.
Wojciechowski, M. F., Sanderson, M. J., Steel, K. P., and Liston, A. 2000. Molecular phylogeny of the “temperate herbaceous tribes” of papilionoid legumes: a supertree approach. In P. Herendeen and A. Bruneau (eds), Advances in Legume Systematics 9:277–298. Royal Botanic Garden, Kew.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2004 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Gatesy, J., Springer, M.S. (2004). A Critique of Matrix Representation with Parsimony Supertrees. 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_18
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-2330-9_18
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-2329-3
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-2330-9
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive