Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 415

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Statistical phylogeography

Knowles, L. Lacey, Maddison, Wayne P.·2002·Molecular Ecology

Abstract

While studies of phylogeography and speciation in the past have largely focused on the documentation or detection of significant patterns of population genetic structure, the emerging field of statistical phylogeography aims to infer the history and processes underlying that structure, and to provide objective, rather than ad hoc explanations. Methods for parameter estimation are now commonly used to make inferences about demographic past. Although these approaches are well developed statistically, they typically pay little attention to geographical history. In contrast, methods that seek to reconstruct phylogeographic history are able to consider many alternative geographical scenarios, but are primarily nonstatistical, making inferences about particular biological processes without explicit reference to stochastically derived expectations. We advocate the merging of these two traditions so that statistical phylogeographic methods can provide an accurate representation of the past, consider a diverse array of processes, and yet yield a statistical estimate of that history. We discuss various conceptual issues associated with statistical phylogeographic inferences, considering especially the stochasticity of population genetic processes and assessing the confidence of phylogeographic conclusions. To this end, we present some empirical examples that utilize a statistical phylogeographic approach, and then by contrasting results from a coalescent-based approach to those from Templeton's nested cladistic analysis (NCA), we illustrate the importance of assessing error. Because NCA does not assess error in its inferences about historical processes or contemporary gene flow, we performed a small-scale study using simulated data to examine how our conclusions might be affected by such unconsidered errors. NCA did not identify the processes used to simulate the data, confusing among deterministic processes and the stochastic sorting of gene lineages. There is as yet insufficient justification of NCA's ability to accurately infer or distinguish among alternative processes. We close with a discussion of some unresolved problems of current statistical phylogeographic methods to propose areas in need of future development.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1046/j.1365-294x.2002.01637.x

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 4 references

Cited by

See all 415

Metadata

Authors
Knowles, L. L., & Maddison, W. P.
Venue
Molecular Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2002-12
Volume
11
Issue
12
Pages
2623-2635
ISSN
  • 0962-1083 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-294X
OpenAlex
W4243094955
Cited by
415
References
4
FWCI
12.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Statistical phylogeography. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1365-294x.2002.01637.x
The paper
Knowles, L. L., & Maddison, W. P. (2002). Statistical phylogeography. Molecular Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-294x.2002.01637.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.