A Family of Average Consensus Methods for Weighted Trees

  • Claudine Levasseur
  • François-Joseph Lapointe
Conference paper
Part of the Studies in Classification, Data Analysis, and Knowledge Organization book series (STUDIES CLASS)


Consensus techniques represent useful tools in phylogenetic analysis, particularly for combining trees derived from different data sets. In the present paper, a family of average consensus methods for weighted trees is presented; the mean and median procedures are compared and applied to combine phylogenetic trees while taking into account their branch lengths. We also provide some recommendations about the use of these consensus techniques in relation to the more classical methods based on topological relationships alone.


Branch Length Consensus Tree Consensus Function Weighted Tree Input Tree 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. BARRETT, M., DONOGHUE, M. J., and SOBER, E. (1991): Against Consensus. Systematic Zoology, 40, 486–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. BULL, J. J., HUELSENBECK, J. P., CUNNINGHAM, C. W., SWOFFORD, D. L., and WADDELL, P. J. (1993): Partitioning and Combining Data in Phylogenetic Analysis. Systematic Biology, 42, 384–397.Google Scholar
  3. BUNEMAN, P. (1971): The Recovery of Trees From Measures of Dissimilarity. In: F.R. Hudson, D.G. Kendall and P. Tautu (Eds.): Mathematics in Archeological and Historical Sciences. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, 387–395.Google Scholar
  4. CANNATELLA, D. C., HILLIS, D. M., CHIPPINDALE, P. T., WEIGT, L., RAND, A. S., and RYAN, M. J. (1998): Phylogeny of Frogs of the Physalaemus pustulosus Species Group, with an Examination of Data Incongruence. Systematic Biology,. 47, 311–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. CAVALLI-SFORZA, L. L., and EDWARDS, A. W. F. (1967): Phylogenetic Analysis: Models and Estimation Procedures. Evolution, 32, 550–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. DE QUEIROZ, A. (1993): For Consensus (Sometimes). Systematic Biology, 42, 368–372Google Scholar
  7. HARTIGAN, J.A. (1967): Representation of Similarity Matrices by Trees. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 62, 1140–1158.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. KLUGE, A.G., and WOLF, A.J. (1993): Cladistics: Whats in a Word? Cladistics, 9, 183–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. LAPOINTE, F.-J. (1998): For Consensus (with branch lengths). In: A. Rizzi, M. Vichi, and H.-H. Bock (Eds.): Advances in Data Science and Classification. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 73–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. LAPOINTE, F.-J. and CUCUMEL, G. (1997): The Average Consensus Procedure: Combination of Weighted Trees Containing Identical or Overlapping Sets of Objects. Systematic Biology, 46, 306–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. MARGUSH, T., and MCMORRIS, F. R. (1981): Consensus n-trees. Bulletin of Mathematical Biology,. 43, 239–244.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. SMITH, T. J. (2001): Constructing Ultrametric and Additive Trees Based on the L1 Norm. Journal of Classification, 18, 185–207.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. SOKAL, R. R., and ROHLF, F. J. (1981): Taxonomic Congruence in the Leptopodomorpha re-examined. Systematic Zoology, 30, 309–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Claudine Levasseur
    • 1
  • François-Joseph Lapointe
    • 1
  1. 1.Département de sciences biologiquesUniversité de MontréalMontréalCanada

Personalised recommendations