Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
(1985)
Aetosaur dermal armor from the late Triassic of southwestern North America, with special reference to material from the Chinle Formation of Petrified Forest National Park
M. Hecht, J. Edwards (1977)
The Methodology of Phylogenetic Inference Above the Species Level
A. Heckert, A. Hunt, S. Lucas (1996)
Redescription of Redondasuchus reseri,, a Late Triassic aetosaur (Reptilia: Archosauria) from New Mexico (U.S.A.), and the biochronology and phylogeny of aetosaursGeobios, 29
A. Walker (1961)
Triassic reptiles from the elgin area: Stagonolepis, Dasygnathus and their alliesPhilosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 244
MEDICO-CEEIRUEGICAL Reyiew (1856)
Lectures on the Comparative Anatomy and Physiology of the Invertebrate AnimalsThe British and Foreign Medico-Chirurgical Review, 18
J. Hawkins (2000)
A survey of primary homology assessment: different botanists perceive and define characters in different ways
M. Wilkinson, J. Thorley (2001)
No compromise on consensusTaxon, 50
F. O’Keefe, P. Wagner (2001)
Inferring and testing hypotheses of cladistic character dependence by using character compatibility.Systematic biology, 50 5
D. Yeates (1995)
GROUNDPLANS AND EXEMPLARS: PATHS TO THE TREE OF LIFECladistics, 11
J. Alroy (1994)
Four Permutation Tests for the Presence of Phylogenetic StructureSystematic Biology, 43
R. Sokal, F. Rohlf (1981)
Taxonomic Congruence in the Leptopodomorpha Re-examinedSystematic Biology, 30
W. Hennig (2002)
Phylogenetic Systematics
M. Wilkinson (1994)
Common Cladistic Information and its Consensus Representation: Reduced Adams and Reduced Cladistic Consensus Trees and ProfilesSystematic Biology, 43
S. Hedges, L. Poling (1999)
A molecular phylogeny of reptiles.Science, 283 5404
(2001)
PICA 4.0: Software and documentation. Department of Zoology
(2003)
Reduced consensus methods
A. Heckert, S. Lucas (1999)
A new aetosaur (Reptilia: Archosauria) from the Upper Triassic of Texas and the phylogeny of aetosaursJournal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 19
(1991)
A new aetosaur from the Redona Formation (Late Triassic: Middle Norian) of east-central New Mexico, USA
J. Wiens (1995)
Polymorphic Characters in Phylogenetic SystematicsSystematic Biology, 44
F. Pleijel (1995)
ON CHARACTER CODING FOR PHYLOGENY RECONSTRUCTIONCladistics, 11
J. Parrish (1994)
Cranial osteology of Longosuchus meadei and the phylogeny and distribution of the AetosauriaJournal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 14
D. Kornet, Hubert Turner (1999)
Coding polymorphism for phylogeny reconstruction.Systematic biology, 48 2
(2000)
Character selection and the methodology of morphological phylogenetics. Pages 20–36 in Phylogenetic analysis of morphological data
A. Rizzi, M. Vichi, H. Bock (1998)
Advances in data science and classification
K. Bremer (1988)
THE LIMITS OF AMINO ACID SEQUENCE DATA IN ANGIOSPERM PHYLOGENETIC RECONSTRUCTIONEvolution, 42
J. Farris (1973)
A Probability Model for Inferring Evolutionary TreesSystematic Biology, 22
M. Wilkinson, J. Thorley, P. Upchurch (2000)
A chain is no stronger than its weakest link: double decay analysis of phylogenetic hypotheses.Systematic biology, 49 4
(2000)
Taphonomy, phylogeny, biostratigraphy, biochronology, paleobiogeograhy, and evolution of the Late Triassic Aetosauria (Archosauria: Crurotarsi)
Dong‐Chan Lee, Harold Bryant (1999)
A Reconsideration of the Coding of Inapplicable Characters: Assumptions and ProblemsCladistics, 15
D. Faith, P. Cranston (1991)
COULD A CLADOGRAM THIS SHORT HAVE ARISEN BY CHANCE ALONE?: ON PERMUTATION TESTS FOR CLADISTIC STRUCTURECladistics, 7
M. Wilkinson (1995)
A COMPARISON OF TWO METHODS OF CHARACTER CONSTRUCTIONCladistics, 11
N. Platnick, C. Griswold, J. Coddington (1991)
ON MISSING ENTRIES IN CLADISTIC ANALYSISCladistics, 7
M. Kearney (2002)
Fragmentary taxa, missing data, and ambiguity: mistaken assumptions and conclusions.Systematic biology, 51 2
J. Archie (1989)
A randomization test for phylogenetic information in systematic dataSystematic Biology, 38
M. Wilkinson (1996)
Majority-rule reduced consensus trees and their use in bootstrapping.Molecular biology and evolution, 13 3
D. Hauser, W. Presch (1991)
THE EFFECT OF ORDERED CHARACTERS ON PHYLOGENETIC RECONSTRUCTIONCladistics, 7
J. Wiens (2001)
Character analysis in morphological phylogenetics: problems and solutions.Systematic biology, 50 5
Wayne Maddison (2000)
Testing character correlation using pairwise comparisons on a phylogeny.Journal of theoretical biology, 202 3
W. Maddison (1993)
Missing Data versus Missing Characters in Phylogenetic AnalysisSystematic Biology, 42
(1994)
Lond. B 255:37–45
E. Strong, D. Lipscomb (1999)
Character Coding and Inapplicable DataCladistics, 15
J. Thorley, R. Page (2000)
RadCon: phylogenetic tree comparison and consensusBioinformatics, 16 5
W. Maddison (1990)
A METHOD FOR TESTING THE CORRELATED EVOLUTION OF TWO BINARY CHARACTERS: ARE GAINS OR LOSSES CONCENTRATED ON CERTAIN BRANCHES OF A PHYLOGENETIC TREE?Evolution, 44
S. Emerson, P. Hastings (1998)
Morphological Correlations in Evolution: Consequences for Phylogenetic AnalysisThe Quarterly Review of Biology, 73
G. Naylor, D. Adams (2001)
Are the fossil data really at odds with the molecular data? Morphological evidence for cetartiodactyla phylogeny reexamined.Systematic biology, 50 3
J. Felsenstein (1985)
CONFIDENCE LIMITS ON PHYLOGENIES: AN APPROACH USING THE BOOTSTRAPEvolution, 39
(2002)
New data on the braincase of the aetosaurian archosaur Stagonolepis robertsoni Agassiz
(1998)
A likelihood approach for estimating phylogenetic relationships among fossil taxa
M. Wilkinson (1997)
CHARACTERS, CONGRUENCE AND QUALITY: A STUDY OF NEUROANATOMICAL AND TRADITIONAL DATA IN CAECILIAN PHYLOGENYBiological Reviews, 72
B. Small (2002)
Cranial anatomy of Desmatosuchus haplocerus (Reptilia: Archosauria: Stagonolepididae)Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 136
M. Donoghue, R. Olmstead, James Smith, J. Palmer (1992)
Phylogenetic relationships of Dipsacales based on rbcl sequencesAnnals of the Missouri Botanical Garden, 79
J. Hawkins, C. Hughes, R. Scotland (1997)
Primary Homology Assessment, Characters and Character StatesCladistics, 13
M. Wilkinson, J. Thorley (2001)
Efficiency of strict consensus trees.Systematic biology, 50 4
D. Gower, M. Wilkinson (1996)
Is there any consensus on basal archosaur phylogeny?Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 263
M. Pagel (1994)
Detecting correlated evolution on phylogenies: a general method for the comparative analysis of discrete charactersProceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 255
M. O'Leary, J. Geisler (1999)
The position of Cetacea within mammalia: phylogenetic analysis of morphological data from extinct and extant taxa.Systematic biology, 48 3
(1999)
PAUP: Phylogenetic analysis using parsimony, version 4.0b4a. Distributed by the Illinois Natural History Survey
M. Wilkinson (1992)
ORDERED VERSUS UNORDERED CHARACTERSCladistics, 8
J. Farris, A. Kluge, M. Eckardt (1970)
A Numerical Approach to Phylogenetic SystematicsSystematic Biology, 19
M. Wilkinson (1995)
Coping with Abundant Missing Entries in Phylogenetic Inference Using ParsimonySystematic Biology, 44
J. Huelsenbeck, Rasmus Nielsen (1999)
Effect of nonindependent substitution on phylogenetic accuracy.Systematic biology, 48 2
Abstract Character construction, the methods by which characters and character states are produced from observations of variation, is a crucial but poorly understood step in phylogenetic analysis. Alternative approaches are used in practice, but there has been relatively little investigation of their theoretical bases and analytical consequences. We reviewed three published numerical analyses of the phylogenetic relationships within the Triassic Aetosauria. Combined data from these studies were used to explore the impact of alternative approaches to character construction. Some previous aetosaurian characters represent parallel variations in the morphology of osteoderms from different body regions, and their independence is questionable, leading us to propose more composite alternative constructions. Phylogenetic analyses revealed that inferred relationships within the Aetosauria are in general poorly resolved and weakly supported by the available data and are sensitive to alternative approaches to character construction. Thus, the results from this and previous studies should not, for the most part, be accepted as robust hypotheses of aetosaurian interrelationships. The treatment of systems of intraorganismal (e.g. serial, antimeric) homologues, such as osteoderms, in character construction is discussed. Applied to parallel variations in systems of intraorganismal homologues, previous advice on choosing among alternative character constructions and Hennig's auxiliary principle agree in favoring a more composite approach, in accordance with common practice. Characters, coding, evolution, morphology, osteoderms, Triassic This content is only available as a PDF. © 2003 Society of Systematic Biologists
Systematic Biology – Oxford University Press
Published: Apr 1, 2003
Keywords: Characters coding evolution morphology osteoderms Triassic
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.