Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 44,647

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

CONFIDENCE LIMITS ON PHYLOGENIES: AN APPROACH USING THE BOOTSTRAP

Open access
Felsenstein, Joseph·1985·Evolution
DOI 10.1111/j.1558-5646.1985.tb00420.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The recently-developed statistical method known as the "bootstrap" can be used to place confidence intervals on phylogenies. It involves resampling points from one's own data, with replacement, to create a series of bootstrap samples of the same size as the original data. Each of these is analyzed, and the variation among the resulting estimates taken to indicate the size of the error involved in making estimates from the original data. In the case of phylogenies, it is argued that the proper method of resampling is to keep all of the original species while sampling characters with replacement, under the assumption that the characters have been independently drawn by the systematist and have evolved independently. Majority-rule consensus trees can be used to construct a phylogeny showing all of the inferred monophyletic groups that occurred in a majority of the bootstrap samples. If a group shows up 95% of the time or more, the evidence for it is taken to be statistically significant. Existing computer programs can be used to analyze different bootstrap samples by using weights on the characters, the weight of a character being how many times it was drawn in bootstrap sampling. When all characters are perfectly compatible, as envisioned by Hennig, bootstrap sampling becomes unnecessary; the bootstrap method would show significant evidence for a group if it is defined by three or more characters.

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 · 10.1111/j.1558-5646.1985.tb00420.x

Cites

2 of 2 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 2 references

Research works printed but not linked: 11

  1. 10.1111/j.1558-5646.1965.tb01722.x · DOI
  2. 10.1016/0025-5564(78)90089-5 · DOI
  3. 10.1016/0025-5564(81)90087-0 · DOI
  4. 10.1038/scientificamerican0583-116 · DOI
  5. 10.1214/aos/1176344552 · DOI · Paper page
  6. 10.2307/2685844 · DOI
  7. 10.2307/2981654 · DOI
  8. 10.1146/annurev.es.14.110183.001525 · DOI
  9. 10.2307/2413323 · DOI
  10. 10.1007/BF02459446 · DOI
  11. 10.1111/j.1558-5646.1983.tb05533.x · DOI

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Felsenstein, J.
Venue
Evolution
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
1985-07
Volume
39
Issue
4
Pages
783-791
ISSN
  • 0014-3820 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-5646
DOI
10.1111/j.1558-5646.1985.tb00420.x
OpenAlex
W2030966943
Cited by
44,647
References
2
FWCI
10.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze
Licence
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Energy (DE‐AT06‐76EV71005)
  • University of Washington (DE‐AM06‐76RL02225)

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

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.