Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,845

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Bayesian Phylogenetic Analysis of Combined Data

Nylander, Johan A. A., Ronquist, Fredrik, Huelsenbeck, John P., Nieves-Aldrey, Joséluis·2004·Systematic Biology

Abstract

The recent development of Bayesian phylogenetic inference using Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) techniques has facilitated the exploration of parameter-rich evolutionary models. At the same time, stochastic models have become more realistic (and complex) and have been extended to new types of data, such as morphology. Based on this foundation, we developed a Bayesian MCMC approach to the analysis of combined data sets and explored its utility in inferring relationships among gall wasps based on data from morphology and four genes (nuclear and mitochondrial, ribosomal and protein coding). Examined models range in complexity from those recognizing only a morphological and a molecular partition to those having complex substitution models with independent parameters for each gene. Bayesian MCMC analysis deals efficiently with complex models: convergence occurs faster and more predictably for complex models, mixing is adequate for all parameters even under very complex models, and the parameter update cycle is virtually unaffected by model partitioning across sites. Morphology contributed only 5% of the characters in the data set but nevertheless influenced the combined-data tree, supporting the utility of morphological data in multigene analyses. We used Bayesian criteria (Bayes factors) to show that process heterogeneity across data partitions is a significant model component, although not as important as among-site rate variation. More complex evolutionary models are associated with more topological uncertainty and less conflict between morphology and molecules. Bayes factors sometimes favor simpler models over considerably more parameter-rich models, but the best model overall is also the most complex and Bayes factors do not support exclusion of apparently weak parameters from this model. Thus, Bayes factors appear to be useful for selecting among complex models, but it is still unclear whether their use strikes a reasonable balance between model complexity and error in parameter estimates.

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 · 10.1080/10635150490264699

Cites

11 of 11 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 11 references

Cited by

See all 1,845

Metadata

Authors
Nylander, J. A. A., Ronquist, F., Huelsenbeck, J. P., & Nieves-Aldrey, J.
Venue
Systematic Biology
Published
2004-02-01
Volume
53
Issue
1
Pages
47-67
ISSN
  • 1063-5157 (ISSN-L)
  • 1076-836X
OpenAlex
W2108087670
Cited by
1,845
References
11
FWCI
34.55
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: Bayesian Phylogenetic Analysis of Combined Data. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/10635150490264699
The paper
Nylander, J. A. A., Ronquist, F., Huelsenbeck, J. P., & Nieves-Aldrey, J. (2004). Bayesian Phylogenetic Analysis of Combined Data. Systematic Biology. https://doi.org/10.1080/10635150490264699

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.