Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 657

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

Leaché, Adam D., Reeder, Tod W.·2002·Systematic Biology

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/106351502753475871

Cites

59 of 59 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 59 references

Cited by

See all 657

Metadata

Authors
Leaché, A. D., & Reeder, T. W.
Venue
Systematic Biology
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.