Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
A. Queiroz (1993)
For Consensus (Sometimes)Systematic Biology, 42
A. Queiroz, M. Donoghue, Junhyong Kim (1995)
Separate Versus Combined Analysis of Phylogenetic EvidenceAnnual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 26
R. Page, D. Clayton, A. Paterson (1996)
Lice and cospeciation: a response to Barker.International journal for parasitology, 26 2
R. Page, Patricia Lee, S. Becher, R. Griffiths, D. Clayton (1998)
A different tempo of mitochondrial DNA evolution in birds and their parasitic lice.Molecular phylogenetics and evolution, 9 2
R. Page (1994)
PARALLEL PHYLOGENIES: RECONSTRUCTING THE HISTORY OF HOST‐PARASITE ASSEMBLAGESCladistics, 10
A. Kluge, J. Farris (1969)
Quantitative Phyletics and the Evolution of AnuransSystematic Biology, 18
R. Page (1993)
Genes, organisms, and areas: the problem of multiple lineagesSystematic Biology, 42
A. Kluge (1989)
A Concern for Evidence and a Phylogenetic Hypothesis of Relationships among Epicrates (Boidae, Serpentes)Systematic Biology, 38
F. Ronquist, S. Nylin (1990)
Process and Pattern in the Evolution of Species AssociationsSystematic Biology, 39
(1995)
TreeMap for Macintosh, Version 1.0b. Glasgow: University of Glasgow
J. Felsenstein (1985)
CONFIDENCE LIMITS ON PHYLOGENIES: AN APPROACH USING THE BOOTSTRAPEvolution, 39
(1990)
Component analysis: a valiant failure? Cladistics
(1996)
Gene trees, species
F. Ronquist (1998)
Three‐Dimensional Cost‐Matrix Optimization and Maximum CospeciationCladistics, 14
M. Hafner, R. Page (1995)
Molecular phylogenies and host-parasite cospeciation: gophers and lice as a model system.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 349 1327
K. Johnson, M. Sorenson (1999)
Phylogeny and biogeography of dabbling ducks (genus: Anas): A comparison of molecular and morphological evidenceThe Auk, 116
M. Hafner, P. Sudman, F. Villablanca, T. Spradling, J. Demastes, S. Nadler (1994)
Disparate rates of molecular evolution in cospeciating hosts and parasites.Science, 265 5175
P. Pamilo, M. Nei (1988)
Relationships between gene trees and species trees.Molecular biology and evolution, 5 5
A. Paterson, R. Gray (1997)
Host-parasite co-speciation, host switching, and missing the boat
A. Brower, R. DeSalle, A. Vogler (1996)
GENE TREES, SPECIES TREES, AND SYSTEMATICS: A Cladistic PerspectiveAnnual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 27
M. Miyamoto (1985)
CONSENSUS CLADOGRAMS AND GENERAL CLASSIFICATIONSCladistics, 1
P. Chippindale, J. Wiens (1994)
Weighting, Partitioning, and Combining Characters in Phylogenetic AnalysisSystematic Biology, 43
(1993)
Partitioning and combining data
(1998)
PAUP*: Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony, Version 4.0, Test Version d61
E. Wiley (1988)
Parsimony analysis and vicariance biogeography.Systematic Biology, 37
(1995)
TreeMap for Macintosh, Version 1.0b
J. Farris, M. Källersjö, A. Kluge, C. Bult (1995)
Constructing a Significance Test for IncongruenceSystematic Biology, 44
Moran Moran, Van Dohlen Van Dohlen, Baumann Baumann (1995)
Faster evolutionary rates in endosymbiotic bacteria than in cospeciating insect hostsJournal of Molecular Evolution, 41
D. Brooks (1988)
Macroevolutionary Comparisons of Host and Parasite PhylogeniesAnnual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 19
F. Ronquist (1995)
RECONSTRUCTING THE HISTORY OF HOST‐PARASITE ASSOCIATIONS USING GENERALISED PARSIMONYCladistics, 11
R. Page (1988)
QUANTITATIVE CLADISTIC BIOGEOGRAPHY: CONSTRUCTING AND COMPARING AREA CLADOGRAMSSystematic Biology, 37
R. Baker, R. DeSalle (1997)
Multiple sources of character information and the phylogeny of Hawaiian drosophilids.Systematic biology, 46 4
J. Farris, M. Källersjö, A. Kluge, C. Bult (1994)
TESTING SIGNIFICANCE OF INCONGRUENCECladistics, 10
J. Huelsenbeck, B. Rannala, Ziheng Yang (1997)
STATISTICAL TESTS OF HOST‐PARASITE COSPECIATIONEvolution, 51
J. Janovy, D. Brooks, D. Mclennan (1992)
Phylogeny, Ecology, and BehaviorJournal of Parasitology, 78
R. Page (1990)
COMPONENT ANALYSIS: A VALIANT FAILURE?Cladistics, 6
M. Miyamoto, W. Fitch (1995)
TESTING SPECIES PHYLOGENIES AND PHYLOGENETIC METHODS WITH CONGRUENCESystematic Biology, 44
J. Ovenden, A. Mackinlay, R. Crozier (1987)
Systematics and Mitochondrial Genome Evolution of Australian Rosellas (Aves: Platycercidae)Molecular Biology and Evolution, 4
J. Huelsenbeck, B. Rannala (1997)
Phylogenetic methods come of age: testing hypotheses in an evolutionary context.Science, 276 5310
D. Brooks (1988)
Macroevolutionary Comparisons Of Host And Parpsite Phylogenies, 19
Chippendale Chippendale, Wiens Wiens (1994)
Weighting, partitioning and combining data in phylogenetic analysisSystematic Biology, 43
Barrett (1991)
Against consensusSystematic Zoology, 40
(1994)
Testing significance of congruence
J. Bull, J. Huelsenbeck, C. Cunningham, D. Swofford, P. Waddell (1993)
Partitioning and combining data in phylogenetic analysisSystematic Biology, 42
E. Hoberg, D. Brooks, D. Siegel-Causey, D. Clayton, Janice Moore (1997)
Host-parasite co-speciation: history, principles, and prospects.
S. Lanyon (1993)
Phylogenetic frameworks: towards a firmer foundation for the comparative approachBiological Journal of The Linnean Society, 49
N. Moran, M. Munson, P. Baumann, H. Ishikawa (1993)
A molecular clock in endosymbiotic bacteria is calibrated using the insect hostsProceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 253
Phylogenies of closely interacting groups, such as hosts and parasites, are seldom completely congruent. Incongruence can arise from biologically meaningful differences in the histories of the two groups, or can be generated by artifactual differences that are merely the result of incorrect phylogenies with weakly supported nodes. We present a method that distinguishes between these sources of incongruence and identifies lineages that are responsible for significant differences between phylogenies. We use the logic of conditional combination in that we first test for statistically significant incongruence using the partition homogeneity test. Then we remove all possible combinations of taxa until a non‐significant result of this test is achieved. Finally, we construct a ‘combined evidence’ phylogeny and then reposition the incongruent taxa. This method produces trees for final comparison using reconciliation methods, but it includes only as many incongruence events as can be statistically justified from the data sets. We apply this method to a host–parasite (gopher–louse) data set and identify many fewer incongruence events than do topology based analyses alone. Our method is broadly applicable to comparisons of phylogenies of interacting taxa, such as hosts and parasites, or mutualists. The method should also be useful for other problems involving comparisons of phylogenies, such as multiple gene trees or cladistic biogeography.
Zoologica Scripta – Wiley
Published: Apr 1, 2001
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.