Split Support and Split Con(cid:143)ict Randomization Tests in Phylogenetic Inference

. —Randomizationtestsallowtheformulationandstatisticaltestingofnullhypothesesabout the quality of entire data sets or the quality of (cid:142)t between the data and particular phylogenetic hy- potheses. Randomization tests of phylogenetic hypotheses based on the concepts of split support and split con(cid:143)ict are described here, as are tests where splits, rather than the data, are randomly permuted. These tree-independent randomization tests are explored through their application to phylogenetic data for caecilian amphibians. Of these tests, split support randomization tests ap- pear to be the most promising tools for phylogeneticists. These tests seem quite conservative, are applicable to nonpolar data and unordered multistate characters, and do not have the problems of nonindependence that affect split con(cid:143)ict and hierarchy tests. Unlike split con(cid:143)ict tests, their power does not appear to be correlated with split size. However, all tests are sensitive to taxonomic scope. Split support tests may help discern data that are likely to be affected by the problems of long-brancheseffects. Comparison of testresults formutually incompatible splits mayhelp identify the presence of strong misleading signals in phylogenetic data. Signi(cid:142)cant split support could be a prerequisite for considering phylogenetic hypotheses to be well supported by the data, and split support randomizationtests mightbeusefully applied prior toor as partoftree construction. [Com-patibility,con(cid:143)ict, hierarchy,phylogeny,randomization,spectralanalysis,splits, statistics, support.]

[1]  M. Wilkinson.  The heart and aortic arches of rhinatrematid caecilians (Amphibia: Gymnophiona) , 1996 .

[2]  R. Nussbaum,et al.  On the phylogenetic position of the Uraeotyphlidae , 1996 .

[3]  M. Wilkinson,et al.  Majority-rule reduced consensus trees and their use in bootstrapping. , 1996, Molecular biology and evolution.

[4]  S. Hedges,et al.  Phylogenetic relationships of amphibian families inferred from DNA sequences of mitochondrial 12S and 16S ribosomal RNA genes. , 1995, Molecular biology and evolution.

[5]  D. Penny,et al.  Use of spectral analysis to test hypotheses on the origin of pinnipeds. , 1995, Molecular biology and evolution.

[6]  Christopher A. Meacham,et al.  Phylogenetic Relationships at the Basal Radiation of An iosperms: Further Study by Probability of Character Compatibility , 1994 .

[7]  J. Alroy.  Four Permutation Tests for the Presence of Phylogenetic Structure , 1994 .

[8]  E. N. Arnold.  Do Ecological Analogues Assemble their Common Features in the Same Order? An Investigation of Regularities in Evolution, Using Sand-Dwelling Lizards as Examples , 1994 .

[9]  D. Faith,et al.  LENGTH DIFFERENCES AND TOPOLOGY‐DEPENDENT TESTS: A RESPONSE TO KÄLLERSJÖ ET AL. , 1994 .

[10]  D. Penny,et al.  Some recent progress with methods for evolutionary trees , 1993 .

[11]  L. Maxson,et al.  Immunological Insights into the Evolutionary History of Caecilians (Amphibia: Gymnophiona): Relationships of the Seychellean Caecilians and a Preliminary Report on Family-Level Relationships , 1993 .

[12]  A. Milner.  THE PALEOZOIC RELATIVES OF LISSAMPHIBIANS , 1993 .

[13]  S. Hedges,et al.  Caecilian phylogeny and biogeography inferred from mitochondrial DNA sequences of the 12S rRNA and 16S rRNA genes (Amphibia : Gymnophiona) , 1993 .

[14]  S. Hedges,et al.  A Molecular Perspective on Lissamphibian Phylogeny , 1993 .

[15]  D. Hillis,et al.  AMPHIBIAN RELATIONSHIPS: PHYLOGENETIC ANALYSIS OF MORPHOLOGY AND MOLECULES , 1993 .

[16]  D. Faith.  ON CORROBORATION: A REPLY TO CARPENTER , 1992, Cladistics : the international journal of the Willi Hennig Society.

[17]  A. Dress,et al.  Split decomposition: a new and useful approach to phylogenetic analysis of distance data. , 1992, Molecular phylogenetics and evolution.

[18]  C. Bult,et al.  SKEWNESS AND PERMUTATION , 1992, Cladistics : the international journal of the Willi Hennig Society.

[19]  M. Wilkinson.  The phylogenetic position of the Rhinatrematidae (Amphibia: Gymnophiona): evidence from the larval lateral line system , 1992 .

[20]  D. Faith.  Cladistic permutation tests for monophyly and nonmonophyly , 1991 .

[21]  Daniel P. Faith,et al.  COULD A CLADOGRAM THIS SHORT HAVE ARISEN BY CHANCE ALONE?: ON PERMUTATION TESTS FOR CLADISTIC STRUCTURE , 1991 .

[22]  D. Hillis.  CHAPTER 2 – The Phylogeny of Amphibians: Current Knowledge and the Role of Cytogenetics , 1991 .

[23]  A. Larson.  A molecular perspective on the evolutionary relationships of the salamander families , 1991 .

[24]  Michael D. Hendy,et al.  A Framework for the Quantitative Study of Evolutionary Trees , 1989 .

[25]  M. Donoghue,et al.  PATTERNS OF VARIATION IN LEVELS OF HOMOPLASY , 1989, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[26]  James W. Archie,et al.  Homoplasy Excess Ratios: New Indices for Measuring Levels of Homoplasy in Phylogenetic Systematics and a Critique of the Consistency Index , 1989 .

[27]  James W. Archie,et al.  A randomization test for phylogenetic information in systematic data , 1989 .

[28]  W. J. Quesne.  The Normal Deviate Test of Phylogenetic Value of a Data Matrix , 1989 .

[29]  Michael J. Sharkey.  A Hypothesis‐Independent Method of Character Weighting for Cladistic Analysis , 1989, Cladistics : the international journal of the Willi Hennig Society.

[30]  A. Wilson,et al.  Patterns of ribosomal RNA evolution in salamanders. , 1989, Molecular biology and evolution.

[31]  R. Nussbaum,et al.  On the Classification and Phylogeny of Caecilians (Amphibia: Gymnophiona), a Critical Review , 1989 .

[32]  R. Nussbaum,et al.  Cytological evidence for monophyly of the caecilians (Amphibia: Gymnophiona) of the Seychelles archipelago , 1988 .

[33]  L. Trueb,et al.  Biology of Amphibians , 1986 .

[34]  G. Estabrook,et al.  Compatibility Methods in Systematics , 1985 .

[35]  C. Meacham.  A probability measure for character compatibility , 1981 .

[36]  R. Nussbaum.  The taxonomic status of the caecilian genus Uraeotyphlus Peters , 1979 .

[37]  R. Nussbaum.  Rhinatrematidae: a new family of caecilians (Amphibia: Gymnophiona) , 1977 .

[38]  J. Farris.  On Comparing the Shapes of Taxonomic Trees , 1973 .

[39]  Walter J. Lequesne.  Further Studies Based on the Uniquely Derived Character Concept , 1972 .