Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,533

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Estimating Phylogenetic Trees from Distance Matrices

Farris, James S.·1972·The American Naturalist

Abstract

1. The distance Wagner procedure, presented here, is a modification of the original Wagner algorithm of Kluge and Farris (1969). Unlike previous techniques for calculating most parsimonious trees, it does not require a character-state matrix for the OTUs, but depends only upon an OTU × OTU matrix of phenetic differences. For this reason, the distance Wagner procedure is applicable to data matrices of immunological distance, such as that of Sarich (1969a), in which between-OTU comparisons are evaluated but for which no attributes of the OTUs themselves are directly observable. The distance Wagner procedure has the advantage over other available techniques for processing such data that it is free of the assumption of homogeneity of evolutionary rates over phyletic lines. 2. The estimated evolutionary trees produced by the distance Wagner procedure are undirected. Their roots may be estimated either by assuming the evolutionary rates of the two most divergent phyletic lines on the tree to be equal, or by connecting to the estimating tree an OTU external to the holophyletic group for which the root is to be estimated. The former technique has the advantage that it can be applied even in poorly understood groups. The latter technique is probably somewhat more reliable in cases in which an OTU external to the desired holophyletic group can be safety identified. 3. An example of the use of the distance Wagner procedure is provided in an analysis of the immunological-distance data of Sarich (1969a). For a subset of the OTUs of Sarich's study, the tree calculated by the distance Wagner procedure is found to give a better fit to the data than the tree published by Sarich (1969b). 4. A second tree, calculated for the largest set of OTUs for which Sarich's data are complete, is used to investigate the degree of homogeneity of the evolutionary rates in different carnivore phyletic lines. It is found that phyletic lines may differ by at least 20%-30% in actual rate of evolution over a time span of about 55 million years. Over shorter time spans, phyletic lines may show at least a 4.5-fold difference in rate of divergence. 5. Because of the likelihood of heterogeneities in amounts of divergence between different phyletic lines, it is inadvisable to use phenetic-similarity clustering techniques to estimate evolutionary trees. An unweighted pair-group analysis of Sarich's data yields a taxonomic placement of dogs which is almost certainly incorrect. 6. The amounts of evolutionary divergence between pairs of OTUs estimated by the distance Wagner procedure have the property that they are always greater than or equal to the observed between-OTU differences. They can thus be interpreted as the number of evolutionary changes occurring in the lines of descent connecting the OTUs. Estimated evolutionary trees on which the length of the branches are assigned using the procedure of Sarich (1969a), Fitch and Margoliash (1967), or Goodman et al. (1971) do not necessarily indicate amounts of divergence with the above property For this reason, "amounts of divergence" calculated from such trees cannot logically be given a physical interpretation and should not be used as estimates of actual amounts of divergence.

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 · 10.1086/282802

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.

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

Cited by

See all 1,533

Metadata

Authors
Farris, J. S.
Venue
The American Naturalist
Published
1972-09
Volume
106
Issue
951
Pages
645-668
ISSN
  • 0003-0147 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-5323
OpenAlex
W2088481129
Cited by
1,533
References
0
FWCI
2.73
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: Estimating Phylogenetic Trees from Distance Matrices. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/282802
The paper
Farris, J. S. (1972). Estimating Phylogenetic Trees from Distance Matrices. The American Naturalist. https://doi.org/10.1086/282802

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.