Minority rule supertrees? MRP, Compatibility, and Minimum Flip may display the least frequent groups

New examples are presented, showing that supertree methods such as matrix representation with parsimony, minimum flip trees, and compatibility analysis of the matrix representing the input trees, produce supertrees that cannot be interpreted as displaying the groups present in the majority of the input trees. These methods may produce a supertree displaying some groups present in the minority of the trees, and contradicted by the majority. Of the three methods, compatibility analysis is the least used, but it seems to be the one that differs the least from majority rule consensus. The three methods are similar in that they choose the supertree(s) that best fit the set of input trees (quantified as some measure of the fit to the matrix representation of the input trees); in the case of complete trees, it is argued that, for a supertree method to be equivalent to majority rule or frequency difference consensus, two necessary (but not sufficient) conditions must be met. First, the measure of fit between a supertree and an input tree must be symmetrical. Second, the fit for a character representing a group must be measured as absolute: either it fits or it does not fit. In the restricted case of complete and equally resolved input trees, compatibility analysis (unlike MRP and minimum flipping) fulfils these two conditions: it is symmetrical (i.e., as long as the trees have the same taxon sets and are equally resolved, the number of characters in the matrix representation of tree A that require homoplasy in tree B is always the same as the number of characters in the matrix representation of tree B that require homoplasy in tree A) and it measures fit as all‐or‐none. In the case of just two complete and equally resolved input trees, the two conditions (symmetry and absolute fit) are necessary and sufficient, which explains why the compatibility analysis of such trees behaves as majority consensus. With more than two such trees, these conditions are still necessary but no longer sufficient for the equivalence; in such cases, the compatibility supertree may differ significantly from the majority rule consensus, even when these conditions apply (as shown by example). MRP and minimum flipping are asymmetric and measure various degrees of fit for each character, which explains why they often behave very differently from majority rule procedures, and why they are very likely to have groups contradicted by each of the input trees, or groups supported by a minority of the input trees.