Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 300

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 54 of the 54 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Evaluation of a Bayesian Coalescent Method of Species Delimitation

Zhang, Chi, Zhang, De-Xing, Zhu, Tianqi, Yang, Ziheng·2011·Systematic Biology

Abstract

A Bayesian coalescent-based method has recently been proposed to delimit species using multilocus genetic sequence data. Posterior probabilities of different species delimitation models are calculated using reversible-jump Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithms. The method accounts for species phylogenies and coalescent events in both extant and extinct species and accommodates lineage sorting and uncertainties in the gene trees. Although the method is theoretically appealing, its utility in practical data analysis is yet to be rigorously examined. In particular, the analysis may be sensitive to priors on ancestral population sizes and on species divergence times and to gene flow between species. Here we conduct a computer simulation to evaluate the statistical performance of the method, such as the false negatives (the error of lumping multiple species into one) and false positives (the error of splitting one species into several). We found that the correct species model was inferred with high posterior probability with only one or two loci when 5 or 10 sequences were sampled from each population, or with 50 loci when only one sequence was sampled. We also simulated data allowing migration under a two-species model, a mainland-island model and a stepping-stone model to assess the impact of gene flow (hybridization or introgression). The behavior of the method was diametrically different depending on the migration rate. Low rates at < 0.1 migrants per generation had virtually no effect, so that the method, while assuming no hybridization between species, identified distinct species despite small amounts of gene flow. This behavior appears to be consistent with biologists' practice. In contrast, higher migration rates at ≥ 10 migrants per generation caused the method to infer one species. At intermediate levels of migration, the method is indecisive. Our results suggest that Bayesian analysis under the multispecies coalescent model may provide important insights into population divergences, and may be useful for generating hypotheses of species delimitation, to be assessed with independent information from anatomical, behavioral, and ecological data.

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/syr071

Cites

54 of 54 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

Cites

Show all 54 references

Cited by

See all 300

Metadata

Authors
Zhang, C., Zhang, D.-X., Zhu, T., & Yang, Z.
Venue
Systematic Biology
Published
2011-08-29
Volume
60
Issue
6
Pages
747-761
ISSN
  • 1063-5157 (ISSN-L)
  • 1076-836X
OpenAlex
W2137811959
Cited by
300
References
54
FWCI
15.16
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: Evaluation of a Bayesian Coalescent Method of Species Delimitation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/sysbio/syr071
The paper
Zhang, C., Zhang, D.-X., Zhu, T., & Yang, Z. (2011). Evaluation of a Bayesian Coalescent Method of Species Delimitation. Systematic Biology. https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syr071

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.