Por favor, use este identificador para citar o enlazar a este item: http://hdl.handle.net/10261/217174
COMPARTIR / EXPORTAR:
logo share SHARE logo core CORE BASE
Visualizar otros formatos: MARC | Dublin Core | RDF | ORE | MODS | METS | DIDL | DATACITE

Invitar a revisión por pares abierta
Título

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

AutorPuttick, Mark N.; O'Reilly, Joseph E.; Oakley, Derek; Tanner, Alistair R.; Fleming, James F.; Clark, James; Holloway, Lucy; Lozano Fernández, Jesús CSIC ORCID ; Parry, Luke A.; Tarver, James E.; Pisani, Davide; Donoghue, Philip C. J.
Palabras claveTaxonomy and systematics
Evolution
Palaeontology
Fecha de publicación11-oct-2017
EditorRoyal Society (Great Britain)
CitaciónProceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 284(1864): 20171636 (2017)
ResumenOur recent study evaluated the performance of parsimony and probabilistic models of phylogenetic inference based on categorical data [1]. We found that a Bayesian implementation of a probabilistic Markov model produced more accurate results than either of the competing parsimony approaches (the main method currently employed), and the maximum-likelihood implementation of the same model. This occurs principally because the results of Bayesian analyses are less resolved (less precise) as a measure of topological uncertainty is intrinsically recovered in this MCMC-based approach and can be used to construct a majority-rule consensus tree that reflects this. Of the three main methods, maximum likelihood performed theworst of all as a single exclusively bifurcating tree is estimated in this framework which does not integrate an intrinsic measure of support.
Versión del editorhttps://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2017.1636
URIhttp://hdl.handle.net/10261/217174
DOI10.1098/rspb.2017.1636
ISSN0962-8452
E-ISSN1471-2954
Aparece en las colecciones: (IBE) Artículos




Ficheros en este ítem:
Fichero Descripción Tamaño Formato
Puttick_etal_2017b_PREPRINT_ProcB.pdf192,41 kBAdobe PDFVista previa
Visualizar/Abrir
Mostrar el registro completo

CORE Recommender

PubMed Central
Citations

8
checked on 12-mar-2024

SCOPUSTM   
Citations

23
checked on 02-may-2024

WEB OF SCIENCETM
Citations

6
checked on 28-feb-2024

Page view(s)

120
checked on 06-may-2024

Download(s)

125
checked on 06-may-2024

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric

Altmetric


Artículos relacionados:


NOTA: Los ítems de Digital.CSIC están protegidos por copyright, con todos los derechos reservados, a menos que se indique lo contrario.