The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Inferring Phylogeny Despite Incomplete Lineage Sorting
Abstract
It is now well known that incomplete lineage sorting can cause serious difficulties for phylogenetic inference, but little attention has been paid to methods that attempt to overcome these difficulties by explicitly considering the processes that produce them. Here we explore approaches to phylogenetic inference designed to consider retention and sorting of ancestral polymorphism. We examine how the reconstructability of a species (or population) phylogeny is affected by (a) the number of loci used to estimate the phylogeny and (b) the number of individuals sampled per species. Even in difficult cases with considerable incomplete lineage sorting (times between divergences less than 1 N(e) generations), we found the reconstructed species trees matched the "true" species trees in at least three out of five partitions, as long as a reasonable number of individuals per species were sampled. We also studied the tradeoff between sampling more loci versus more individuals. Although increasing the number of loci gives more accurate trees for a given sampling effort with deeper species trees (e.g., total depth of 10 N(e) generations), sampling more individuals often gives better results than sampling more loci with shallower species trees (e.g., depth = 1 N(e)). Taken together, these results demonstrate that gene sequences retain enough signal to achieve an accurate estimate of phylogeny despite widespread incomplete lineage sorting. Continued improvement in our methods to reconstruct phylogeny near the species level will require a shift to a compound model that considers not only nucleotide or character state substitutions, but also the population genetics processes of lineage sorting. [Coalescence; divergence; population; speciation.].
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
Evolutionary trees from DNA sequences: A maximum likelihood approach.
Felsenstein, J. (1981) · Journal of Molecular Evolution · doi:10.1007/bf01734359 · Cited by 14,571
Cited by
Bayesian inference of species trees from multilocus data
Heled, J., & Drummond, A. J. (2010) · Molecular Biology and Evolution · doi:10.1093/molbev/msp274 · Cited by 2,453
How to fail at species delimitation
Carstens, B. C., Pelletier, T. A., Reid, N. M., & Satler, J. D. (2013) · Molecular Ecology · doi:10.1111/mec.12413 · Cited by 1,248
Is a new and general theory of molecular systematics emerging?
Edwards, S. V. (2009) · Evolution · doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2008.00549.x · Cited by 1,040
Isolation with Migration Models for More Than Two Populations
Hey, J. (2010) · Molecular Biology and Evolution · doi:10.1093/molbev/msp296 · Cited by 894
Anchored Hybrid Enrichment for Massively High-Throughput Phylogenomics
Lemmon, A. R., Emme, S. A., & Lemmon, E. M. (2012) · Systematic Biology · doi:10.1093/sysbio/sys049 · Cited by 833
Metadata
- Authors
- Maddison, W. P., & Knowles, L. L.
- Venue
- Systematic Biology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2006-02-01
- Volume
- 55
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 21-30
- ISSN
- 1063-5157 (ISSN-L)
- 1076-836X
- OpenAlex
- W2128252278
- Cited by
- 1,142
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 18.42
- 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: Inferring Phylogeny Despite Incomplete Lineage Sorting. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/10635150500354928
- The paper
- Maddison, W. P., & Knowles, L. L. (2006). Inferring Phylogeny Despite Incomplete Lineage Sorting. Systematic Biology. https://doi.org/10.1080/10635150500354928
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.