Literature DB >> 29021176

Parsimony and maximum-likelihood phylogenetic analyses of morphology do not generally integrate uncertainty in inferring evolutionary history: a response to Brown et al.

Mark N Puttick1,2, Joseph E O'Reilly1, Derek Oakley1, Alistair R Tanner3, James F Fleming1, James Clark1, Lucy Holloway1, Jesus Lozano-Fernandez1, Luke A Parry1, James E Tarver1, Davide Pisani4,3, Philip C J Donoghue5.   

Abstract

Mesh：

Year:  2017        PMID： 29021176      PMCID： PMC5647306          DOI： 10.1098/rspb.2017.1636

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc Biol Sci        ISSN： 0962-8452            Impact factor:   5.349


× No keyword cloud information.
  6 in total

1.  A likelihood approach to estimating phylogeny from discrete morphological character data.

Authors:  P O Lewis
Journal:  Syst Biol       Date:  2001 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 15.683

2.  Branch-length prior influences Bayesian posterior probability of phylogeny.

Authors:  Ziheng Yang; Bruce Rannala
Journal:  Syst Biol       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 15.683

3.  Bayesian and likelihood phylogenetic reconstructions of morphological traits are not discordant when taking uncertainty into consideration: a comment on Puttick et al.

Authors:  Joseph W Brown; Caroline Parins-Fukuchi; Gregory W Stull; Oscar M Vargas; Stephen A Smith
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2017-10-11       Impact factor: 5.349

4.  Bayesian analysis using a simple likelihood model outperforms parsimony for estimation of phylogeny from discrete morphological data.

Authors:  April M Wright; David M Hillis
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-10-03       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Bayesian methods outperform parsimony but at the expense of precision in the estimation of phylogeny from discrete morphological data.

Authors:  Joseph E O'Reilly; Mark N Puttick; Luke Parry; Alastair R Tanner; James E Tarver; James Fleming; Davide Pisani; Philip C J Donoghue
Journal:  Biol Lett       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 3.703

6.  Uncertain-tree: discriminating among competing approaches to the phylogenetic analysis of phenotype data.

Authors:  Mark N Puttick; Joseph E O'Reilly; Alastair R Tanner; James F Fleming; James Clark; Lucy Holloway; Jesus Lozano-Fernandez; Luke A Parry; James E Tarver; Davide Pisani; Philip C J Donoghue
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2017-01-11       Impact factor: 5.349
  6 in total
  6 in total

1.  Morphological Phylogenetics Evaluated Using Novel Evolutionary Simulations.

Authors:  Joseph N Keating; Robert S Sansom; Mark D Sutton; Christopher G Knight; Russell J Garwood
Journal:  Syst Biol       Date:  2020-09-01       Impact factor: 15.683

2.  Bayesian and parsimony approaches reconstruct informative trees from simulated morphological datasets.

Authors:  Martin R Smith
Journal:  Biol Lett       Date:  2019-02-28       Impact factor: 3.703

3.  Exceptional preservation of mid-Cretaceous marine arthropods and the evolution of novel forms via heterochrony.

Authors:  J Luque; R M Feldmann; O Vernygora; C E Schweitzer; C B Cameron; K A Kerr; F J Vega; A Duque; M Strange; A R Palmer; C Jaramillo
Journal:  Sci Adv       Date:  2019-04-24       Impact factor: 14.136

4.  Data partitioning and correction for ascertainment bias reduce the uncertainty of placental mammal divergence times inferred from the morphological clock.

Authors:  Ian V Caldas; Carlos G Schrago
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2019-01-30       Impact factor: 2.912

5.  Ancestral morphology of Ecdysozoa constrained by an early Cambrian stem group ecdysozoan.

Authors:  Richard J Howard; Gregory D Edgecombe; Xiaomei Shi; Xianguang Hou; Xiaoya Ma
Journal:  BMC Evol Biol       Date:  2020-11-23       Impact factor: 3.260

6.  Cranial osteology of Hypoptophis (Aparallactinae: Atractaspididae: Caenophidia), with a discussion on the evolution of its fossorial adaptations.

Authors:  Sunandan Das; Jonathan Brecko; Olivier S G Pauwels; Juha Merilä
Journal:  J Morphol       Date:  2022-02-08       Impact factor: 1.966
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.