Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 2,896

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Cases in which Parsimony or Compatibility Methods will be Positively Misleading

Felsenstein, J.·1978·Systematic Biology

Abstract

For some simple three- and four-species cases involving a character with two states, it is determined under what conditions several methods of phylogenetic inference will fail to converge to the true phylogeny as more and more data are accumulated. The methods are the Camin-Sokal parsimony method, the compatibility method, and Farris's unrooted Wagner tree parsimony method. In all cases the conditions for this failure (which is the failure to be statistically consistent) are essentially that parallel changes exceed informative, nonparallel changes. It is possible for these methods to be inconsistent even when change is improbable a priori, provided that evolutionary rates in different lineages are sufficiently unequal. It is by extension of this approach that we may provide a sound methodology for evaluating methods of phylogenetic inference.

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 · 10.1093/sysbio/27.4.401

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 2,896

Metadata

Authors
Felsenstein, J.
Venue
Systematic Biology
Published
1978-12-01
Volume
27
Issue
4
Pages
401-410
ISSN
  • 1063-5157 (ISSN-L)
  • 1076-836X
OpenAlex
W1966972227
Cited by
2,896
References
0
FWCI
1.61
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: Cases in which Parsimony or Compatibility Methods will be Positively Misleading. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/sysbio/27.4.401
The paper
Felsenstein, J. (1978). Cases in which Parsimony or Compatibility Methods will be Positively Misleading. Systematic Biology. https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/27.4.401

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.