Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 636

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Numerical Methods for Inferring Evolutionary Trees

Felsenstein, Joseph·1982·The Quarterly Review of Biology

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1086/412935

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 636

Metadata

Authors
Felsenstein, J.
Venue
The Quarterly Review of Biology
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.