Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 791

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

Huelsenbeck, J. P., Hillis, D. M.·1993·Systematic Biology

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/sysbio/42.3.247

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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 791

Metadata

Authors
Huelsenbeck, J. P., & Hillis, D. M.
Venue
Systematic Biology
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.