The problem of rooting rapid radiations.
暂无分享,去创建一个
D. Penny | M. Hendy | B. Holland | L. Shavit
[1] H. Munro,et al. Mammalian protein metabolism , 1964 .
[2] T. Jukes. CHAPTER 24 – Evolution of Protein Molecules , 1969 .
[3] A Gajdos,et al. [Evolution of protein molecules. I. Protein synthesis]. , 1972, La Nouvelle presse medicale.
[4] J. Felsenstein. Cases in which Parsimony or Compatibility Methods will be Positively Misleading , 1978 .
[5] David Penny,et al. Comparing Trees with Pendant Vertices Labelled , 1984 .
[6] C. Krimbas,et al. Accuracy of phylogenetic trees estimated from DNA sequence data. , 1987, Molecular biology and evolution.
[7] N. Saitou,et al. Relative Efficiencies of the Fitch-Margoliash, Maximum-Parsimony, Maximum-Likelihood, Minimum-Evolution, and Neighbor-joining Methods of Phylogenetic Tree Construction in Obtaining the Correct Tree , 1989 .
[8] Michael D. Hendy,et al. A Framework for the Quantitative Study of Evolutionary Trees , 1989 .
[9] M. Miyamoto,et al. Phylogenetic Analysis of DNA Sequences , 1991 .
[10] Michael D. Hendy,et al. Parsimony Can Be Consistent , 1993 .
[11] D. Penny,et al. Spectral analysis of phylogenetic data , 1993 .
[12] M. Steel,et al. Corrected Parsimony, Minimum Evolution, and Hadamard Conjugations , 1996 .
[13] Z. Yang,et al. How often do wrong models produce better phylogenies? , 1997, Molecular biology and evolution.
[14] Andrew Rambaut,et al. Seq-Gen: an application for the Monte Carlo simulation of DNA sequence evolution along phylogenetic trees , 1997, Comput. Appl. Biosci..
[15] M. Siddall,et al. Success of Parsimony in the Four‐Taxon Case: Long‐Branch Repulsion by Likelihood in the Farris Zone , 1998 .
[16] D. Swofford,et al. Taxon sampling revisited , 1999, Nature.
[17] W. Bruno,et al. Topological bias and inconsistency of maximum likelihood using wrong models. , 1999, Molecular biology and evolution.
[18] M. Nei,et al. Molecular Evolution and Phylogenetics , 2000 .
[19] M. Steel,et al. Distributions of cherries for two models of trees. , 2000, Mathematical biosciences.
[20] D. Swofford,et al. Should we use model-based methods for phylogenetic inference when we know that assumptions about among-site rate variation and nucleotide substitution pattern are violated? , 2001, Systematic biology.
[21] P. Lockhart,et al. Trees for bees. , 2001, Trends in ecology & evolution.
[22] J. S. Rogers,et al. Bias in phylogenetic estimation and its relevance to the choice between parsimony and likelihood methods. , 2001, Systematic biology.
[23] D. Swofford. PAUP*: Phylogenetic analysis using parsimony (*and other methods), Version 4.0b10 , 2002 .
[24] David Penny,et al. Four new mitochondrial genomes and the increased stability of evolutionary trees of mammals from improved taxon sampling. , 2002, Molecular biology and evolution.
[25] D. Penny,et al. Pika and vole mitochondrial genomes increase support for both rodent monophyly and glires. , 2002, Gene.
[26] D. Penny,et al. Two new avian mitochondrial genomes (penguin and goose) and a summary of bird and reptile mitogenomic features. , 2003, Gene.
[27] D. Penny,et al. Outgroup misplacement and phylogenetic inaccuracy under a molecular clock--a simulation study. , 2003, Systematic biology.
[28] Michael P. Cummings,et al. PAUP* [Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony (and Other Methods)] , 2004 .
[29] Timothy J. Harlow,et al. Bayesian and maximum likelihood phylogenetic analyses of protein sequence data under relative branch-length differences and model violation , 2005, BMC Evolutionary Biology.
[30] S. Ho,et al. Tracing the decay of the historical signal in biological sequence data. , 2004, Systematic biology.
[31] J. Palmer,et al. Long branch attraction, taxon sampling, and the earliest angiosperms: Amborella or monocots? , 2004, BMC Evolutionary Biology.
[32] Pamela S Soltis,et al. Genome-scale data, angiosperm relationships, and "ending incongruence": a cautionary tale in phylogenetics. , 2004, Trends in plant science.
[33] D. Penny,et al. Four new avian mitochondrial genomes help get to basic evolutionary questions in the late cretaceous. , 2004, Molecular biology and evolution.
[34] H. Philippe,et al. Multigene analyses of bilaterian animals corroborate the monophyly of Ecdysozoa, Lophotrochozoa, and Protostomia. , 2005, Molecular biology and evolution.
[35] B. Holland,et al. Analysis of Acorus calamus chloroplast genome and its phylogenetic implications. , 2005, Molecular biology and evolution.
[36] J. McInerney,et al. The Opisthokonta and the Ecdysozoa may not be clades: stronger support for the grouping of plant and animal than for animal and fungi and stronger support for the Coelomata than Ecdysozoa. , 2005, Molecular biology and evolution.
[37] Jack Sullivan,et al. Model Selection in Phylogenetics , 2005 .
[38] D. Penny,et al. The place of Amborella within the radiation of angiosperms. , 2005, Trends in plant science.
[39] J. Bergsten. A review of long‐branch attraction , 2005, Cladistics : the international journal of the Willi Hennig Society.
[40] Jim Leebens-Mack,et al. Identifying the basal angiosperm node in chloroplast genome phylogenies: sampling one's way out of the Felsenstein zone. , 2005, Molecular biology and evolution.
[41] Mike Steel,et al. The Bayesian "star paradox" persists for long finite sequences. , 2006, Molecular biology and evolution.