Dealing with propositions, not with the characters: the ability of three-taxon statement analysis to recognise groups based solely on ‘reversals’, under the maximum-likelihood criteria
Evgeny V. Mavrodiev
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations
Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, PO Box 117800, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA. Email: evgeny@ufl.edu
Australian Systematic Botany 29(2) 119-125 https://doi.org/10.1071/SB16006
Submitted: 12 March 2016 Accepted: 10 June 2016 Published: 17 October 2016
Abstract
Three-taxon statement matrices can be analysed using the maximum-likelihood method. In the present paper, it is demonstrated that groups based solely on putative reversals are always recognisable after maximum-likelihood analysis of three-taxon statement matrices, even without a priori recoding of the putative reversals as new character states or fractional weighting of three-taxon statements. Parametric implementations of three-taxon statement analysis still require more investigation. However, it must be highlighted that a focus on the set of hypotheses, rather than on the ‘actual data’, is required.
Additional keywords: evolutionary model, maximum parsimony, most probable hierarchies of patterns, parametric phylogenetics, plesiomorphy.
References
Adams MB (1980) Severtsov and Schmalhausen: Russian morphology and the evolutionary synthesis. In ‘The Evolutionary Synthesis. Perspectives on the Unification of Biology’. (Eds E Mayr, WB Provine) pp. 193–225. (Harvard University Press)Bagils RZ, Ung V, Grand A, Vignes-Lebbe R, Cao N, Ducasse J (2012) LisBeth: new cladistics for phylogenetics and biogeography. Comptes Rendus. Palévol 11, 563–566.
| LisBeth: new cladistics for phylogenetics and biogeography.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Brower AVZ, de Pinna MCC (2014) About nothing. Cladistics 30, 330–336.
| About nothing.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
De Laet J, Smets E (1998a) On the three-taxon approach to parsimony analysis. Cladistics 14, 363–381.
| On the three-taxon approach to parsimony analysis.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
De Laet J, Smets E (1998b) On the TTSC–FTSC formulation of standard parsimony. Cladistics 14, 239–248.
| On the TTSC–FTSC formulation of standard parsimony.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Ebach MC, Williams DM (2014) Reading trees. Zootaxa 3814, 297–300.
| Reading trees.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 24943430PubMed |
Ebach MC, Williams DM, Vanderlaan TA (2013) Implementation as theory, hierarchy as transformation, homology as synapomorphy. Zootaxa 3641, 587–594.
| Implementation as theory, hierarchy as transformation, homology as synapomorphy.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 26287109PubMed |
Farris JS (1997) Cycles. Cladistics 13, 131–144.
Farris JS (2011) Systemic foundering. Cladistics 27, 207–221.
| Systemic foundering.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Farris JS (2012a) 3ta sleeps with the fishes. Cladistics 28, 422–436.
| 3ta sleeps with the fishes.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Farris JS (2012b) Nelson’s arrested development. Cladistics 28, 551–553.
| Nelson’s arrested development.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Farris JS (2013) Pattern taxonomy. Cladistics 29, 228–229.
| Pattern taxonomy.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Farris JS (2014) ‘Pattern cladistics’ really means paraphyly. Cladistics 30, 236–239.
| ‘Pattern cladistics’ really means paraphyly.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Farris JS, Kluge AG (1998) A/the brief history of three-taxon analysis. Cladistics: the International Journal of the Willi Hennig Society 14, 349–362.
| A/the brief history of three-taxon analysis.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Farris JS, Kallersjo M, Albert VA, Allard M, Anderberg A, Bowditch B, Bult C, Carpenter JM, Crowe TM, DeLaet J, Fitzhugh K, Frost D, Goloboff P, Humphries CJ, Jondelius U, Judd D, Karis PO, Lipscomb D, Luckow M, Mindell D, Muona J, Nixon K, Presch W, Seberg O, Siddall ME, Struwe L, Tehler A, Wenzel J, Wheeler Q, Wheeler W (1995) Explanation. Cladistics 11, 211–218.
| Explanation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Farris JS, Kluge AG, De Laet JE (2001) Taxic revisions. Cladistics 17, 79–103.
| Taxic revisions.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Felsenstein J (1978) Cases in which parsimony or compatibility methods will be positively misleading. Systematic Zoology 27, 401–410.
| Cases in which parsimony or compatibility methods will be positively misleading.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Felsenstein J (1981) A likelihood approach to character weighting and what it tells us about parsimony and compatibility. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. Linnean Society of London 16, 183–196.
| A likelihood approach to character weighting and what it tells us about parsimony and compatibility.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Felsenstein J (1989) PHYLIP: phylogeny inference package (version 3.2). Cladistics 5, 164–166.
Felsenstein J (2004) ‘Inferring Phylogenies.’ (Sinauer Associates Inc.: Sunderland, MA, USA)
Galtier N, Gascuel O, Jean-Marie A (2005) Markov models in molecular evolution. In ‘Statistical Methods in Molecular Evolution’. (Ed. R Nielsen) pp. 3–24. (Springer: New York)
Grabau RF (1963) Kant’s concept of the thing-in-itself – an interpretation – Discussion. The Review of Metaphysics 16, 770–779.
Hoaglund J (1973) Thing-in-itself in English interpretations of Kant. American Philosophical Quarterly 10, 1–14.
Kitching IJ, Forey PL, Humphries CJ, Williams DM (1998) ‘Cladistics. The Theory and Practice of Parsimony Analysis’, 2nd edn. Systematics Association Publication 11. (Oxford University Press: New York)
Kluge AG (1994) Moving targets and shell games. Cladistics 10, 403–413.
| Moving targets and shell games.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Kluge AG, Farris JS (1999) Taxic homology equals overall similarity. Cladistics 15, 205–212.
Lewis PO (2001) A likelihood approach to estimating phylogeny from discrete morphological character data. Systematic Biology 50, 913–925.
| A likelihood approach to estimating phylogeny from discrete morphological character data.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD38zntVKlsQ%3D%3D&md5=f6eab76021ec0b64ab1729169c99f996CAS | 12116640PubMed |
Mavrodiev EV (2015) Three-taxon analysis can always successfully recognize groups based on putative reversals. PeerJ PrePrints 3, e1206
| Three-taxon analysis can always successfully recognize groups based on putative reversals.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Mavrodiev EV, Madorsky A (2012) TAXODIUM Version 1.0: a simple way to generate uniform and fractionally weighted three-item matrices from various kinds of biological data. PLoS One 7, e48813
| TAXODIUM Version 1.0: a simple way to generate uniform and fractionally weighted three-item matrices from various kinds of biological data.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC38XhvVagsrjI&md5=be010e35a6754aeb0c0c6726bf84138cCAS | 23185277PubMed |
Miller MA, Pfeiffer W, Schwartz T (2010) Creating the CIPRES science gateway for inference of large phylogenetic trees. In ‘2010 Gateway Computing Environments Workshop (GCE)’, 14 November 2010, New Orleans, LA, USA. (Ed. M Pirece) Proceedings CFP1022F-POD, pp. 45–52. (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers)
Nelson G (1996) ‘Nullius in verba.’ (Self-published: New York)
Nelson G, Ladiges PY (1992) Information-content and fractional weight of 3-item statements. Systematic Biology 41, 490–494.
| Information-content and fractional weight of 3-item statements.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Nelson G, Ladiges PY (1994) Three-item consensus: empirical test of fractional weighting. In ‘Models in Phylogeny Reconstruction’, Systematics Association Special Vol. 52. (Eds RW Scotland, DJ Siebert, DM Williams) pp. 193–209. (Oxford University Press: London)
Nelson G, Platnick NI (1991) Three-taxon statements: a more precise use of parsimony? Cladistics 7, 351–366.
| Three-taxon statements: a more precise use of parsimony?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Nixon KC, Carpenter JM (1993) On outgroups. Cladistics 9, 413–426.
| On outgroups.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Platnick NI (1993) Character optimization and weighting: differences between the standard and three-taxon approaches to phylogenetic inference. Cladistics 9, 267–272.
| Character optimization and weighting: differences between the standard and three-taxon approaches to phylogenetic inference.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Platnick NI, Gertsch WJ (1976) The suborders of spiders: a cladistic analysis (Arachnida, Araneae). American Museum Novitates 2607, 1–15.
Platnick NI, Humphries CJ, Nelson G, Williams DM (1996) Is Farris optimization perfect? Three-taxon statements and multiple branching. Cladistics 12, 243–252.
| Is Farris optimization perfect? Three-taxon statements and multiple branching.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Ranwez V, Gascuel O (2001) Quartet-based phylogenetic inference: improvements and limits. Molecular Biology and Evolution 18, 1103–1116.
| Quartet-based phylogenetic inference: improvements and limits.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD3MXktFemurk%3D&md5=6388d317c34ec53e8207de3df944e7caCAS | 11371598PubMed |
Rickert, H. (1902) ‘Die Grenzen der naturwissenschaftlichen Begriffsbildung. Eine logische Einleitung in die historischen Wissenschaften.’ (Akademische Verlagsbuchhandlung von J. C. B. Mohr: Freiburg, Germany)
Rineau V, Grand A, Zaragüeta R, Laurin M, Bagils RZ (2015) Experimental systematics: sensitivity of cladistic methods to polarization and character ordering schemes. Contributions to Zoology 84, 129–148.
Siebert DJ, Williams DM (1998) Recycled. Cladistics 14, 339–347.
| Recycled.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Stamatakis A (2014) RAxML version 8: a tool for phylogenetic analysis and post-analysis of large phylogenies. Bioinformatics 30, 1312–1313.
| RAxML version 8: a tool for phylogenetic analysis and post-analysis of large phylogenies.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC2cXmvFCjsbc%3D&md5=14c04a21f4955d6cf18f9de574bb4dfeCAS | 24451623PubMed |
Strimmer K, von Haeseler A (1996) Quartet puzzling: a quartet maximum-likelihood method for reconstructing tree topologies. Molecular Biology and Evolution 13, 964–969.
| Quartet puzzling: a quartet maximum-likelihood method for reconstructing tree topologies.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DyaK28XltlSmsLk%3D&md5=81fb09def8704da3680066e87aecaefdCAS |
Sy Vinh LS, von Haeseler A (2005) Shortest triplet clustering: reconstructing large phylogenies using representative sets. BMC Bioinformatics 6, 92
| Shortest triplet clustering: reconstructing large phylogenies using representative sets.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Waegele JW (2005) ‘Foundations of Phylogenetic Systematics.’ (Pfeil Verlag: München, Germany)
Watrous LE, Wheeler QD (1981) The out-group comparison method of character analysis. Systematic Zoology 30, 1–11.
| The out-group comparison method of character analysis.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Weston PH (2000) Process morphology from a cladistics perspective. In ‘Homology and Systematics: Coding Characters for Phylogenetic Analysis’. (Eds RW Scotland, RT Pennington.) Vol. 58, pp. 124–144. (Chapman and Hall: London)
Wheeler Q, Blackwell M (1984) Cladistics and the historical component of fungus–insect relationships. In ‘Fungus–Insect Relationship: Perspectives in Ecology and Evolution’. (Eds Q Wheeler, M Blackwell) pp. 5–41. (Columbia University Press)
Williams DM (1996) Characters and cladograms. Taxon 45, 275–283.
| Characters and cladograms.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Williams DM, Ebach MC (2005) Drowning by numbers: rereading Nelson’s ‘Nullius in verba’. Botanical Review 71, 415–447.
| Drowning by numbers: rereading Nelson’s ‘Nullius in verba’.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Williams DM, Ebach MC (2006) The data matrix. Geodiversitas 28, 409–420.
Williams DM, Ebach MC (2008) ‘Foundations of Systematics and Biogeography.’ (Springer: New York)
Williams DM, Siebert DJ (2000) Characters, homology and three-item analysis. In ‘Homology and Systematics: Coding Characters for Phylogenetic Analysis’. (Eds RW Scotland, RT Pennington.) Vol. 58, pp. 183–208. (Chapman and Hall: London)
