You are not currently logged in.
Access JSTOR through your library or other institution:
If You Use a Screen ReaderThis content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Phylogenetic Uncertainties and Sensitivity Analyses in Comparative Biology
Michael J. Donoghue and David D. Ackerly
Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences
Vol. 351, No. 1345, Plant Life Histories: Ecological Correlates and Phylogenetic Constraints (Sep. 30, 1996), pp. 1241-1249
Published by: Royal Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/56199
Page Count: 9
You can always find the topics here!Topics: Phylogenetics, Taxa, Evolution, Phylogeny, Angiosperms, Simulations, Qualitative comparative analysis, Biological evolution, Biology, Biological taxonomies
Were these topics helpful?See somethings inaccurate? Let us know!
Select the topics that are inaccurate.
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Preview not available
Phylogenetic comparative analyses combine information on character states and phylogenetic relationships of taxa to test hypotheses regarding character evolution. These studies encounter uncertainties at various steps, including uncertainty in the topology of phylogenetic trees, the scoring of characters, and the addition of taxa that have not explicitly been included in phylogenetic analyses. Here we highlight a variety of sensitivity tests designed to explore the robustness of comparative conclusions to changes in underlying assumptions. These include the examination of character correlations on a set of plausible phylogenetic hypotheses (including alternative rootings and `neighbouring' trees), as well as under alternative character codings. TreeBASE - a prototype relational database of phylogenetic data - should prove useful in accessing alternative hypotheses.
Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences © 1996 Royal Society