The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Can Incomplete Taxa Rescue Phylogenetic Analyses from Long-Branch Attraction?
Open accessAbstract
Taxon sampling may be critically important for phylogenetic accuracy because adding taxa can help to subdivide misleading long branches. Although the idea that added taxa can break up long branches was exemplified by a study of "incomplete" fossil taxa, the issue of taxon completeness (i.e., proportion of missing data) has been largely ignored in most subsequent discussions of taxon sampling and long-branch attraction. In this article, I use simulations to test the ability of incomplete taxa to subdivide long branches and improve phylogenetic accuracy in situations of potential long-branch attraction. The results show that for most methods and conditions examined, adding taxa that are only 50% complete may provide similar benefits to adding the same number of complete taxa (suggesting that the advantages of increased taxon sampling may be obtained with less data than previously considered). For parsimony, taxa that are less complete (5% to 25% complete) may often have limited ability to rescue analyses from long-branch attraction. In contrast, highly incomplete taxa can be surprisingly beneficial when using model-based methods. The results also suggest the importance of model-based methods in phylogenetic analyses that combine molecular and fossil data.
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
MRBAYES: Bayesian inference of phylogenetic trees.
Huelsenbeck, J. P., & Ronquist, F. (2001) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/17.8.754 · Cited by 21,937
Evolution of Protein Molecules
JUKES, T. H., & CANTOR, C. R. (1969) · Mammalian Protein Metabolism · doi:10.1016/b978-1-4832-3211-9.50009-7 · Cited by 11,032
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
A likelihood approach to estimating phylogeny from discrete morphological character data
Lewis, P. O. (2001) · Systematic Biology · doi:10.1080/106351501753462876 · Cited by 2,929
Cases in which parsimony or compatibility methods will be positively misleading.
Felsenstein, J. (1978) · Systematic Zoology · doi:10.2307/2412923 · Cited by 2,230
Cited by
TRY – a global database of plant traits
KATTGE, J., DÍAZ, S., LAVOREL, S., PRENTICE, I. C., LEADLEY, P., BÖNISCH, G., GARNIER, E., WESTOBY, M., REICH, P. B., WRIGHT, I. J., et al. (2011) · Global Change Biology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02451.x · Cited by 2,638
Tunicates and not cephalochordates are the closest living relatives of vertebrates
Delsuc, F., Brinkmann, H., Chourrout, D., & Philippe, H. (2006) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature04336 · Cited by 1,651
Resolving difficult phylogenetic questions: Why more sequences are not enough
Philippe, H., Brinkmann, H., Lavrov, D. V., Littlewood, D. T. J., Manuel, M., Wörheide, G., & Baurain, D. (2011) · PLoS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1000602 · Cited by 1,129
Assessing the root of bilaterian animals with scalable phylogenomic methods
Hejnol, A., Obst, M., Stamatakis, A., Ott, M., Rouse, G. W., Edgecombe, G. D., Martinez, P., Baguñà, J., Bailly, X., Jondelius, U., et al. (2009) · Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.2009.0896 · Cited by 747
LIVEZEY, B. C., & ZUSI, R. L. (2007) · Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society · doi:10.1111/j.1096-3642.2006.00293.x · Cited by 574
Metadata
- Authors
- Wiens, J. J.
- Venue
- Systematic Biology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2005-10-01
- Volume
- 54
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 731-742
- ISSN
- 1063-5157 (ISSN-L)
- 1076-836X
- OpenAlex
- W2149729335
- Cited by
- 298
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 5.65
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Can Incomplete Taxa Rescue Phylogenetic Analyses from Long-Branch Attraction? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/10635150500234583
- The paper
- Wiens, J. J. (2005). Can Incomplete Taxa Rescue Phylogenetic Analyses from Long-Branch Attraction? Systematic Biology. https://doi.org/10.1080/10635150500234583
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.