The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Irrelevance of Allele Tree Topologies for Species Delimitation, and a Non-Topological Alternative
Abstract
Below the level of what is commonly accepted as the in sexual organisms there may be no phylogeny, only reticulate relationships (tokogeny) among individuals. The con- ventional molecular systematics research program, which infers organismal relationships from the topologies of allele or haplotype trees, will be misled below this critical level, in part because allele trees are not expected to track tokogenetic relationships. Yet there appears to be little or no consensus about how to delimit taxa that are appropriate for phylogenetic analysis. Individual sexual organisms cannot be the terminal units of analyses that employ typical nuclear genes, for which heterozygosity is expected, because heterozygous individuals cannot be uniquely placed on allele trees. Methods using the topologies of multiple allele trees also are flawed, in part for the same reason but also because, for an unknown fraction of the nuclear genome, allele phylogenies are not expected to track organismal relationships. A non-topological approach, which does not assume species or populations, is proposed here. This method identifies allele pools at individual loci by the dis- tribution of alleles in overlapping sets of heterozygous individuals. Individuals possessing alleles at a given allele pool of a locus belong to the same group, called here a field for recombination. Allele pools at each locus are a representation of the overall gene pool, which in turn can be inferred from multilocus genotypes; individuals sharing a common gene pool belong to the same multilocus field for recombination (ml-FFR). Once such gene pools are defined, allele topologies at suitable loci can be used to infer phylogenies. DNA sequence data are increasingly acces-
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
Cited by
Sequence-Based Species Delimitation for the DNA Taxonomy of Undescribed Insects
Pons, J., Barraclough, T. G., Gomez-Zurita, J., Cardoso, A., Duran, D. P., Hazell, S., Kamoun, S., Sumlin, W. D., & Vogler, A. P. (2006) · Systematic Biology · doi:10.1080/10635150600852011 · Cited by 2,775
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
Self-citationReview and interpretation of trends in DNA barcoding
DeSalle, R., & Goldstein, P. (2019) · Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.3389/fevo.2019.00302 · Cited by 338
Flot, J.-F., Couloux, A., & Tillier, S. (2010) · BMC Evolutionary Biology · doi:10.1186/1471-2148-10-372 · Cited by 139
van der Ven, R. M., Flot, J.-F., Buitrago-López, C., & Kochzius, M. (2021) · Heredity · doi:10.1038/s41437-020-00379-5 · Cited by 26
Metadata
- Authors
- Doyle, J. J.
- Venue
- Systematic Botany
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 1995-10
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 574
- ISSN
- 0363-6445 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2055849724
- Cited by
- 183
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 3.45
- 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: The Irrelevance of Allele Tree Topologies for Species Delimitation, and a Non-Topological Alternative. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/2419811
- The paper
- Doyle, J. J. (1995). The Irrelevance of Allele Tree Topologies for Species Delimitation, and a Non-Topological Alternative. Systematic Botany. https://doi.org/10.2307/2419811
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.