The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Numerical Methods for Inferring Evolutionary Trees
Abstract
Despite a century of evolutionary theory, only in the last few decades have clearly defined procedures for inferring phylogenies been stated. For discrete characters whose ancestral states are known, the prescriptions of Henning are well defined, but they are applicable only when there is no incompatibility between different characters. This limitation has led to the elaboration of a number of methods for dealing with such incompatibilities. One category consists of the parsimony methods, which choose that phylogeny on which the fewest changes of character state need be assumed. Another category consists of the compatibility methods, which choose that phylogeny which is perfectly compatible with the largest number of characters, irrespective of how many changes need be assumed in other characters. Other approaches include the use of phenetic clustering algorithms and methods fitting trees to similarity or distance matrices. Each method has a different set of implicit assumptions concerning the biology of the characters and the information available from the data. If the methods are considered in a statistical framework as different estimators of an unknow quantity (the phylogeny), these asseumptions are more clearly seen. Standard statistical approaches, such as maximum likelihood, can be used to obtain methods whose properties are known and for which one can determine the amount of uncertainty in the resulting estimates of the phylogeny. Although existing statistical models are highly oversimplified and do not reflect the complexity of evolutionary processes, it is by viewing the problem as a statistical one that we can place all these methods in common fremework, within which their behavior and assumptions can be compared. It is essential that we not adopt a single methods as a universal panacea, but that an attempt be made to understand the biological assumptions and statistical behavior of each method.
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
Cited by
Kishino, H., & Hasegawa, M. (1989) · Journal of Molecular Evolution · doi:10.1007/bf02100115 · Cited by 3,373
Recent Developments in the Analysis of Comparative Data
Pagel, M. D., & Harvey, P. H. (1988) · The Quarterly Review of Biology · doi:10.1086/416027 · Cited by 442
Ancestral Inference from Samples of DNA Sequences with Recombination
GRIFFITHS, R. C., & MARJORAM, P. (1996) · Journal of Computational Biology · doi:10.1089/cmb.1996.3.479 · Cited by 403
Comparative methods for explaining adaptations
Harvey, P. H., & Purvis, A. (1991) · Nature · doi:10.1038/351619a0 · Cited by 383
PHYLOGENIES AND THE ANALYSIS OF EVOLUTIONARY SEQUENCES, WITH EXAMPLES FROM SEED PLANTS
Donoghue, M. J. (1989) · Evolution · doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.1989.tb02565.x · Cited by 367
Metadata
- Authors
- Felsenstein, J.
- Venue
- The Quarterly Review of Biology
- Publisher
- University of Chicago Press
- Published
- 1982-12
- Volume
- 57
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 379-404
- ISSN
- 0033-5770 (ISSN-L)
- 1539-7718
- OpenAlex
- W1991258751
- Cited by
- 636
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 6.38
- 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: Numerical Methods for Inferring Evolutionary Trees. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/412935
- The paper
- Felsenstein, J. (1982). Numerical Methods for Inferring Evolutionary Trees. The Quarterly Review of Biology. https://doi.org/10.1086/412935
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.