The DOI matches its Crossref record; 59 of the 59 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Molecular Systematics of the Eastern Fence Lizard (Sceloporus undulatus): A Comparison of Parsimony, Likelihood, and Bayesian Approaches
Abstract
Phylogenetic analysis of large datasets using complex nucleotide substitution models under a maximum likelihood framework can be computationally infeasible, especially when attempting to infer confidence values by way of nonparametric bootstrapping. Recent developments in phylogenetics suggest the computational burden can be reduced by using Bayesian methods of phylogenetic inference. However, few empirical phylogenetic studies exist that explore the efficiency of Bayesian analysis of large datasets. To this end, we conducted an extensive phylogenetic analysis of the wide-ranging and geographically variable Eastern Fence Lizard (Sceloporus undulatus). Maximum parsimony, maximum likelihood, and Bayesian phylogenetic analyses were performed on a combined mitochondrial DNA dataset (12S and 16S rRNA, ND1 protein-coding gene, and associated tRNA; 3,688 bp total) for 56 populations of S. undulatus (78 total terminals including other S. undulatus group species and outgroups). Maximum parsimony analysis resulted in numerous equally parsimonious trees (82,646 from equally weighted parsimony and 335 from weighted parsimony). The majority rule consensus tree derived from the Bayesian analysis was topologically identical to the single best phylogeny inferred from the maximum likelihood analysis, but required approximately 80% less computational time. The mtDNA data provide strong support for the monophyly of the S. undulatus group and the paraphyly of "S. undulatus" with respect to S. belli, S. cautus, and S. woodi. Parallel evolution of ecomorphs within "S. undulatus" has masked the actual number of species within this group. This evidence, along with convincing patterns of phylogeographic differentiation suggests "S. undulatus" represents at least four lineages that should be recognized as evolutionary species.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Thompson, J. D., Higgins, D. G., & Gibson, T. J. (1994) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/22.22.4673 · Cited by 64,617
CONFIDENCE LIMITS ON PHYLOGENIES: AN APPROACH USING THE BOOTSTRAP
Felsenstein, J. (1985) · Evolution · doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.1985.tb00420.x · Cited by 44,647
MRBAYES: Bayesian inference of phylogenetic trees.
Huelsenbeck, J. P., & Ronquist, F. (2001) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/17.8.754 · Cited by 21,937
MODELTEST: testing the model of DNA substitution.
Posada, D., & Crandall, K. A. (1998) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/14.9.817 · Cited by 19,820
Mayr, E. (1963) · doi:10.4159/harvard.9780674865327 · Cited by 10,175
Sequence and organization of the human mitochondrial genome
Anderson, S., Bankier, A. T., Barrell, B. G., de Bruijn, M. H. L., Coulson, A. R., Drouin, J., Eperon, I. C., Nierlich, D. P., Roe, B. A., Sanger, F., et al. (1981) · Nature · doi:10.1038/290457a0 · Cited by 9,636
Dating of the human–ape splitting by a molecular clock of mitochondrial DNA.
Hasegawa, M., Kishino, H., & Yano, T.-A. (1985) · Journal of Molecular Evolution · doi:10.1007/bf02101694 · Cited by 8,687
Molecular Markers, Natural History and Evolution
Avise, J. C. (1994) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4615-2381-9 · Cited by 5,242
Kocher, T. D., Thomas, W. K., Meyer, A., Edwards, S. V., Pääbo, S., Villablanca, F. X., & Wilson, A. C. (1989) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.86.16.6196 · Cited by 4,969
MRBAYES: Bayesian inference of phylogeny
Huelsenbeck, J. P., & Ronquist, F. (2001) · Bioinformatics · Cited by 4,892
Cited by
Approximate likelihood-ratio test for branches: A fast, accurate, and powerful alternative
Anisimova, M., & Gascuel, O. (2006) · Systematic Biology · doi:10.1080/10635150600755453 · Cited by 2,693
Bayesian species delimitation using multilocus sequence data
Yang, Z., & Rannala, B. (2010) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0913022107 · Cited by 1,405
A review of long-branch attraction
Bergsten, J. (2005) · Cladistics · doi:10.1111/j.1096-0031.2005.00059.x · Cited by 1,162
Assembling the fungal tree of life: progress, classification, and evolution of subcellular traits
Lutzoni, F., Kauff, F., Cox, C. J., McLaughlin, D., Celio, G., Dentinger, B., Padamsee, M., Hibbett, D., James, T. Y., Baloch, E., et al. (2004) · American Journal of Botany · doi:10.3732/ajb.91.10.1446 · Cited by 816
Reliability of Bayesian Posterior Probabilities and Bootstrap Frequencies in Phylogenetics
Erixon, P., Svennblad, B., Britton, T., & Oxelman, B. (2003) · Systematic Biology · doi:10.1080/10635150390235485 · Cited by 697
Metadata
- Authors
- Leaché, A. D., & Reeder, T. W.
- Venue
- Systematic Biology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2002-01-01
- Volume
- 51
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 44-68
- ISSN
- 1063-5157 (ISSN-L)
- 1076-836X
- OpenAlex
- W2151527745
- Cited by
- 657
- References
- 59
- FWCI
- 14.36
- 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: Molecular Systematics of the Eastern Fence Lizard (Sceloporus undulatus): A Comparison of Parsimony, Likelihood, and Bayesian Approaches. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/106351502753475871
- The paper
- Leaché, A. D., & Reeder, T. W. (2002). Molecular Systematics of the Eastern Fence Lizard (Sceloporus undulatus): A Comparison of Parsimony, Likelihood, and Bayesian Approaches. Systematic Biology. https://doi.org/10.1080/106351502753475871
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.