The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Success of Phylogenetic Methods in the Four-Taxon Case
Abstract
The success of 16 methods of phylogenetic inference was examined using consistency and simulation analysis. Success—the frequency with which a tree-making method correctly identified the true phylogeny—was examined for an unrooted four-taxon tree. In this study, tree-making methods were examined under a large number of branch-length conditions and under three models of sequence evolution. The results are plotted to facilitate comparisons among the methods. The consistency analysis indicated which methods converge on the correct tree given infinite sample size. General parsimony, transversion parsimony, and weighted parsimony are inconsistent over portions of the graph space examined, although the area of inconsistency varied. Lake's method of invariants consistently estimated phylogeny over all of the graph space when the model of sequence evolution matched the assumptions of the invariants method. However, when one of the assumptions of the invariants method was violated, Lake's method of invariants became inconsistent over a large portion of the graph space. In general, the distance methods (neighbor joining, weighted least squares, and unweighted least squares) consistently estimated phylogeny over all of the graph space examined when the assumptions of the distance correction matched the model of evolution used to generate the model trees. When the assumptions of the distance methods were violated, the methods became inconsistent over portions of the graph space. UPGMA was inconsistent over a large area of the graph space, no matter which distance was used. The simulation analysis showed how tree-making methods perform given limited numbers of character data. In some instances, the simulation results differed quantitatively from the consistency analysis. The consistency analysis indicated that Lake's method of invariants was consistent over all of the graph space under some conditions, whereas the simulation analysis showed that Lake's method of invariants performs poorly over most of the graph space for up to 500 variable characters. Parsimony, neighbor-joining, and the least-squares methods performed well under conditions of limited amount of character change and branch-length variation. By weighting the more slowly evolving characters or using distances that correct for multiple substitution events, the area in which tree-making methods are misleading can be reduced. Good performance at high rates of change was obtained only by giving increased weight to slowly evolving characters (e.g., transversion parsimony, weighted parsimony). UPGMA performed well only when branch lengths were close in length.
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
Kimura, M. (1980) · Journal of Molecular Evolution · doi:10.1007/bf01731581 · Cited by 29,778
Evolutionary trees from DNA sequences: A maximum likelihood approach.
Felsenstein, J. (1981) · Journal of Molecular Evolution · doi:10.1007/bf01734359 · Cited by 14,571
Evolution of Protein Molecules
JUKES, T. H., & CANTOR, C. R. (1969) · Mammalian Protein Metabolism · doi:10.1016/b978-1-4832-3211-9.50009-7 · Cited by 11,032
Cases in which parsimony or compatibility methods will be positively misleading.
Felsenstein, J. (1978) · Systematic Zoology · doi:10.2307/2412923 · Cited by 2,230
A rate-independent technique for analysis of nucleic acid sequences: evolutionary parsimony.
(1987) · Molecular Biology and Evolution · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a040433 · Cited by 377
Paired sequence difference in ribosomal RNAs: evolutionary and phylogenetic implications.
(1988) · Molecular Biology and Evolution · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a040480 · Cited by 234
Cited by
A Simple, Fast, and Accurate Algorithm to Estimate Large Phylogenies by Maximum Likelihood
Guindon, S., & Gascuel, O. (2003) · Systematic Biology · doi:10.1080/10635150390235520 · Cited by 16,806
TCS: a computer program to estimate gene genealogies
Clement, M., Posada, D., & Crandall, K. A. (2000) · Molecular Ecology · doi:10.1046/j.1365-294x.2000.01020.x · Cited by 9,861
Posada, D., & Buckley, T. R. (2004) · Systematic Biology · doi:10.1080/10635150490522304 · Cited by 3,927
A review of long-branch attraction
Bergsten, J. (2005) · Cladistics · doi:10.1111/j.1096-0031.2005.00059.x · Cited by 1,162
Phylogeny Estimation and Hypothesis Testing Using Maximum Likelihood
Huelsenbeck, J. P., & Crandall, K. A. (1997) · Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.28.1.437 · Cited by 1,018
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Huelsenbeck, J. P., & Hillis, D. M.
- Venue
- Systematic Biology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1993-09-01
- Volume
- 42
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 247-264
- ISSN
- 1063-5157 (ISSN-L)
- 1076-836X
- OpenAlex
- W1971273325
- Cited by
- 791
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 8.87
- 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: Success of Phylogenetic Methods in the Four-Taxon Case. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/sysbio/42.3.247
- The paper
- Huelsenbeck, J. P., & Hillis, D. M. (1993). Success of Phylogenetic Methods in the Four-Taxon Case. Systematic Biology. https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/42.3.247
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.