Advertisement

The Information Content of Consensus Trees

  • Joseph L. Thorley
  • Mark Wilkinson
  • Mike Charleston
Part of the Studies in Classification, Data Analysis, and Knowledge Organization book series (STUDIES CLASS)

Abstract

Phylogenetic Information Content, a class of measures of the information provided by consensus trees based on the number of permitted resolutions of the consensus, is introduced. A formula for the number of permitted resolutions of Adams consensus trees is derived and a proof given. We argue that maximising PIC measures provides a sensible criterion for choosing among alternative consensus trees and we illustrate this for consensus trees of cladograms.

Keywords

Consensus Phylogeny Adams resolutions Information Content 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adams, E.N. (1972). Consensus techniques and the comparison of taxonomic trees, Syst. Zool., 21, 390–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adams, E.N. (1986). N-trees as nestings: complexity, similarity and consensus, J. Classify 3, 299–317.Google Scholar
  3. Bobisud, H.M., and L.E. Bobisud. (1972). A metric for classification, Taxon, 21, 607–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Gordon, A.D. (1980). On the assessment and comparison of classifications, in: Analyse de Donnees et Informatique, Tomassone, R. (Ed.), Le Chesnay: INRIA, 149–160.Google Scholar
  5. Mickevich, M.F. (1978). Taxonomic congruence, Syst. Zool, 27, 143–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Mickevich, M.F., and N.I. Platnick. (1981). On the information content of classifications, Cladistics, 5, 33–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Nelson, G., and N.I. Platnick. (1980). Multiple branching in cladograms: two interpretations, Syst. Zool., 29, 86–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Neumann, D.A. (1983). Faithful consensus methods for n-trees, Mathematical Biosciences, 63, 271–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Rohlf, F.J. (1982). Consensus indices for comparing classifications, Mathematical Biosciences, 59, 131–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Sokal, R.R., and F.J. Rohlf. (1981). Taxonomic congruence in the Leptopodomorpha re-examined, Syst. Zool., 30, 309–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Stinebrickner, R. (1984). An extension of intersection methods from trees to dendrograms, Syst. Zool, 33, 381–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Swofford, D.L. (1991). When are phylogeny estimates from molecular and morphological data incongruent?, in: Phylogenetic analysis of DNA sequences, Miyamoto, M.M. and Cracraft, J. (Eds.), Oxford Univ. Press, 295–333.Google Scholar
  13. Wilkinson, M. (1994). Common cladistic information and its consensus representation: reduced Adams and reduced cladistic consensus trees and profiles, Syst. Biol., 43, 343–368.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin · Heidelberg 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joseph L. Thorley
    • 1
  • Mark Wilkinson
    • 1
    • 2
  • Mike Charleston
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Biological SciencesUniversity of BristolBristolUK
  2. 2.Department of ZoologyNatural History MuseumLondonUK
  3. 3.Department of ZoologyUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations