The DOI matches its Crossref record; 77 of the 77 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
SEPARATE VERSUS COMBINED ANALYSIS OF PHYLOGENETIC EVIDENCE
Abstract
There has been much discussion in the recent systematic literature over whether different data sets bearing on phylogenetic relationships should be analyzed separately or combined and analyzed simultaneously. We review arguments in favor of each of these views. Assuming that the goal is to uncover the true phylogeny of the entities in question, arguments for combining data based on the notions that one should use the total evidence available, or that the combined analysis gives the tree with the greatest descriptive and explanatory power, are not compelling. However, combining data sets can enhance detection of real phylogenetic groups. On the other hand, if there is heterogeneity
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
Molecular Evolutionary Genetics
Nei, M. (1987) · Columbia University Press eBooks · doi:10.7312/nei-92038 · Cited by 15,271
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
PAUP (phylogenetic analysis using parsimony)
(2008) · Encyclopedia of Genetics, Genomics, Proteomics and Informatics · doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-6754-9_12413 · Cited by 4,412
Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge.
Hutchison, T. W., & Popper, K. R. (1964) · Economica · doi:10.2307/2551371 · Cited by 4,197
Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge.
Hesse, M., & Popper, K. R. (1965) · The Philosophical Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2218271 · Cited by 4,189
Cases in which Parsimony or Compatibility Methods will be Positively Misleading
Felsenstein, J. (1978) · Systematic Biology · doi:10.1093/sysbio/27.4.401 · Cited by 2,896
Variation and Evolution in Plants
Stebbins, G. L. (1950) · doi:10.7312/steb94536 · Cited by 2,704
Cases in which parsimony or compatibility methods will be positively misleading.
Felsenstein, J. (1978) · Systematic Zoology · doi:10.2307/2412923 · Cited by 2,230
Logical Foundations of Probability
Savage, L. J., & Carnap, R. (1952) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1907654 · Cited by 2,033
Cited by
Terrace Aware Data Structure for Phylogenomic Inference from Supermatrices
Chernomor, O., von Haeseler, A., & Minh, B. Q. (2016) · Systematic Biology · doi:10.1093/sysbio/syw037 · Cited by 2,252
Is a new and general theory of molecular systematics emerging?
Edwards, S. V. (2009) · Evolution · doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2008.00549.x · Cited by 1,040
Testing for Phylogenetic Conflict Among Molecular Data Sets in the Tribe Triticeae (Gramineae)
Mason-Gamer, R. J., & Kellogg, E. A. (1996) · Systematic Biology · doi:10.1093/sysbio/45.4.524 · Cited by 820
Phylogenetic Incongruence: Window into Genome History and Molecular Evolution
Wendel, J. F., & Doyle, J. J. (1998) · Molecular Systematics of Plants II · doi:10.1007/978-1-4615-5419-6_10 · Cited by 649
KURTZMAN, C., & ROBNETT, C. (2003) · FEMS Yeast Research · doi:10.1016/s1567-1356(03)00012-6 · Cited by 646
Metadata
- Authors
- de Queiroz, A., Donoghue, M. J., & Kim, J.
- Venue
- Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics
- Publisher
- Annual Reviews
- Published
- 1995-11
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 657-681
- ISSN
- 0066-4162 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2177605519
- Cited by
- 516
- References
- 77
- FWCI
- 11.01
- 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: SEPARATE VERSUS COMBINED ANALYSIS OF PHYLOGENETIC EVIDENCE. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1146/annurev.es.26.110195.003301
- The paper
- de Queiroz, A., Donoghue, M. J., & Kim, J. (1995). SEPARATE VERSUS COMBINED ANALYSIS OF PHYLOGENETIC EVIDENCE. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.26.110195.003301
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.
