Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 167

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Highly Incomplete Taxa Can Rescue Phylogenetic Analyses from the Negative Impacts of Limited Taxon Sampling

Open access
Wiens, John J., Tiu, Jonathan·2012·PLoS ONE

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Phylogenies are essential to many areas of biology, but phylogenetic methods may give incorrect estimates under some conditions. A potentially common scenario of this type is when few taxa are sampled and terminal branches for the sampled taxa are relatively long. However, the best solution in such cases (i.e., sampling more taxa versus more characters) has been highly controversial. A widespread assumption in this debate is that added taxa must be complete (no missing data) in order to save analyses from the negative impacts of limited taxon sampling. Here, we evaluate whether incomplete taxa can also rescue analyses under these conditions (empirically testing predictions from an earlier simulation study). METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We utilize DNA sequence data from 16 vertebrate species with well-established phylogenetic relationships. In each replicate, we randomly sample 4 species, estimate their phylogeny (using bayesian, likelihood, and parsimony methods), and then evaluate whether adding in the remaining 12 species (which have 50, 75, or 90% of their data replaced with missing data cells) can improve phylogenetic accuracy relative to analyzing the 4 complete taxa alone. We find that in those cases where sampling few taxa yields an incorrect estimate, adding taxa with 50% or 75% missing data can frequently (>75% of relevant replicates) rescue bayesian and likelihood analyses, recovering accurate phylogenies for the original 4 taxa. Even taxa with 90% missing data can sometimes be beneficial. CONCLUSIONS: We show that adding taxa that are highly incomplete can improve phylogenetic accuracy in cases where analyses are misled by limited taxon sampling. These surprising empirical results confirm those from simulations, and show that the benefits of adding taxa may be obtained with unexpectedly small amounts of data. These findings have important implications for the debate on sampling taxa versus characters, and for studies attempting to resolve difficult phylogenetic problems.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0042925

Cites

4 of 4 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 4 references

Cited by

See all 167

Metadata

Authors
Wiens, J. J., & Tiu, J.
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2012-08-10
Volume
7
Issue
8
Pages
e42925
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2103338216
Cited by
167
References
4
FWCI
7.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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: Highly Incomplete Taxa Can Rescue Phylogenetic Analyses from the Negative Impacts of Limited Taxon Sampling. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pone.0042925
The paper
Wiens, J. J., & Tiu, J. (2012). Highly Incomplete Taxa Can Rescue Phylogenetic Analyses from the Negative Impacts of Limited Taxon Sampling. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0042925

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.