The DOI matches its Crossref record; 56 of the 56 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Multiple Sources of Character Information and the Phylogeny of Hawaiian Drosophilids
Open accessAbstract
Relationships among representatives of the five major Hawaiian Drosophila species groups were examined using data from eight different gene regions. A simultaneous analysis of these data resulted in a single most-parsimonious tree that (1) places the adiastola picture-winged subgroup as sister taxon to the other picture-winged subgroups, (2) unites the modified-tarsus species group with flies from the Antopocerus species group, and (3) places the white-tip scutellum species group as the most basal taxon. Because of the different gene sources used in this study, numerous process partitions can be erected within this data set. We examined the incongruence among these various partitions and the ramifications of these data for the taxonomic consensus, prior agreement, and simultaneous analysis approaches to phylogenetic reconstruction. Separate analyses and taxonomic consensus appear to be inadequate methods for dealing with the partitions in this study. Although detection of incongruence is possible and helps elucidate particular areas of disagreement among data sets, separation of partitions on the basis of incongruence is problematic for many reasons. First, analyzing all genes separately and then either presenting them all as possible hypotheses or taking their consensus provides virtually no information concerning the relationships among these flies. Second, despite some evidence of incongruence, there are no clear delineations among the various gene partitions that separate only heterogeneous data. Third, to the extent that problematic genes can be identified, these genes have nearly the same information content, within a combined analysis framework, as the remaining nonproblematic genes. Our data suggest that significant incongruence among data partitions may be isolated to specific relationships and the "false" signal creating this incongruence is most likely to be overcome by a simultaneous analysis. We present a new method, partitioned Bremer support, for examining the contribution of a particular data partition to the topological support of the simultaneous analysis tree.
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
CONFIDENCE LIMITS ON PHYLOGENIES: AN APPROACH USING THE BOOTSTRAP
Felsenstein, J. (1985) · Evolution · doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.1985.tb00420.x · Cited by 44,647
Simon, C., Frati, F., Beckenbach, A., Crespi, B., Liu, H., & Flook, P. (1994) · Annals of the Entomological Society of America · doi:10.1093/aesa/87.6.651 · Cited by 6,097
TESTING SIGNIFICANCE OF INCONGRUENCE
Farris, J. S., Källersjö, M., Kluge, A. G., & Bult, C. (1994) · Cladistics · doi:10.1111/j.1096-0031.1994.tb00181.x · Cited by 3,833
BRANCH SUPPORT AND TREE STABILITY
Bremer, K. (1994) · Cladistics · doi:10.1006/clad.1994.1019 · Cited by 2,903
THE LIMITS OF AMINO ACID SEQUENCE DATA IN ANGIOSPERM PHYLOGENETIC RECONSTRUCTION
Bremer, K. (1988) · Evolution · doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.1988.tb02497.x · Cited by 2,534
Kluge, A. G. (1989) · Systematic Biology · doi:10.1093/sysbio/38.1.7 · Cited by 1,290
Constructing a Significance Test for Incongruence
Farris, J. S., Källersjö, M., Kluge, A. G., & Bult, C. J. (1995) · Systematic Biology · doi:10.1093/sysbio/44.4.570 · Cited by 1,177
Kluge, A. G. (1989) · Systematic Zoology · doi:10.2307/2992432 · Cited by 984
Gene Trees and Species Trees: Molecular Systematics as One-Character Taxonomy
Doyle, J. J. (1992) · Systematic Botany · doi:10.2307/2419070 · Cited by 968
Partitioning and Combining Data in Phylogenetic Analysis
Bull, J. J., Huelsenbeck, J. P., Cunningham, C. W., Swofford, D. L., & Waddell, P. J. (1993) · Systematic Biology · doi:10.1093/sysbio/42.3.384 · Cited by 902
Cited by
Inferring ancient divergences requires genes with strong phylogenetic signals
Salichos, L., & Rokas, A. (2013) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature12130 · Cited by 616
Barker, F. K., Barrowclough, G. F., & Groth, J. G. (2002) · Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.2001.1883 · Cited by 377
Integrative taxonomy, or iterative taxonomy?
YEATES, D. K., SEAGO, A., NELSON, L., CAMERON, S. L., JOSEPH, L., & TRUEMAN, J. W. H. (2011) · Systematic Entomology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-3113.2010.00558.x · Cited by 366
Novel Information Theory-Based Measures for Quantifying Incongruence among Phylogenetic Trees
Salichos, L., Stamatakis, A., & Rokas, A. (2014) · Molecular Biology and Evolution · doi:10.1093/molbev/msu061 · Cited by 300
En route to a genome-based classification of Archaea and Bacteria?
Klenk, H.-P., & Göker, M. (2010) · Systematic and Applied Microbiology · doi:10.1016/j.syapm.2010.03.003 · Cited by 275
Metadata
- Authors
- Baker, R. H., & DeSalle, R.
- Venue
- Systematic Biology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1997-12-01
- Volume
- 46
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 654-673
- ISSN
- 1063-5157 (ISSN-L)
- 1076-836X
- OpenAlex
- W2132208795
- Cited by
- 560
- References
- 56
- FWCI
- 19.20
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Multiple Sources of Character Information and the Phylogeny of Hawaiian Drosophilids. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/sysbio/46.4.654
- The paper
- Baker, R. H., & DeSalle, R. (1997). Multiple Sources of Character Information and the Phylogeny of Hawaiian Drosophilids. Systematic Biology. https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/46.4.654
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.