Progress with methods for constructing evolutionary trees.

Evolutionists dream of a tree-reconstruction method that is efficient (fast), powerful, consistent, robust and falsifiable. These criteria are at present conflicting in that the fastest methods are weak (in their use of information in the sequences) and inconsistent (even with very long sequences they may lead to an incorrect tree). But there has been exciting progress in new approaches to tree inference, in understanding general properties of methods, and in developing ideas for estimating the reliability of trees. New phylogenetic invariant methods allow selected parameters of the underlying model to be estimated directly from sequences. There is still a need for more theoretical understanding and assistance in applying what is already known.

[1]  P. H. A. Sneath,et al.  Analysis and Interpretation of Sequence Data for Bacterial Systematics: The View of a Numerical Taxonomist , 1989 .

[2]  J. A. Cavender,et al.  Necessary conditions for the method of inferring phylogeny by linear invariants. , 1991, Mathematical biosciences.

[3]  D Sankoff,et al.  Designer invariants for large phylogenies. , 1990, Molecular biology and evolution.

[4]  G A Churchill,et al.  Methods for inferring phylogenies from nucleic acid sequence data by using maximum likelihood and linear invariants. , 1991, Molecular biology and evolution.

[5]  M. Eigen,et al.  How old is the immunodeficiency virus? , 1990, AIDS.

[6]  M. Steel.  Distributions on bicoloured evolutionary trees , 1990, Bulletin of the Australian Mathematical Society.

[7]  M. A. STEEL,et al.  Loss of information in genetic distances , 1988, Nature.

[8]  Michael J. Sanderson,et al.  Flexible Phylogeny Reconstruction: A Review of Phylogenetic Inference Packages Using Parsimony , 1990 .

[9]  M. Pagel,et al.  The comparative method in evolutionary biology , 1991 .

[10]  D Penny,et al.  Estimating the reliability of evolutionary trees. , 1986, Molecular biology and evolution.

[11]  J. A. Cavender.  Taxonomy with confidence , 1978 .

[12]  David G. Lloyd,et al.  Multi‐residue gaps, a class of molecular characters with exceptional reliability for phylogenetic analyses , 1991 .

[13]  N. Saitou,et al.  The neighbor-joining method: a new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees. , 1987, Molecular biology and evolution.

[14]  Nick Goldman,et al.  MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD INFERENCE OF PHYLOGENETIC TREES, WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO A POISSON PROCESS MODEL OF DNA SUBSTITUTION AND TO PARSIMONY ANALYSES , 1990 .

[15]  J. Felsenstein.  Phylogenies from molecular sequences: inference and reliability. , 1988, Annual review of genetics.

[16]  Masami Hasegawa,et al.  CONFIDENCE LIMITS ON THE MAXIMUM‐LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATE OF THE HOMINOID TREE FROM MITOCHONDRIAL‐DNA SEQUENCES , 1989, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[17]  J. Felsenstein.  Cases in which Parsimony or Compatibility Methods will be Positively Misleading , 1978 .

[18]  R. Graham,et al.  Unlikelihood that minimal phylogenies for a realistic biological study can be constructed in reasonable computational time , 1982 .

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

[20]  M. Nei,et al.  Relationships between gene trees and species trees. , 1988, Molecular biology and evolution.

[21]  D Penny,et al.  Trees from sequences: panacea or Pandora's box. , 1990 .

[22]  J. Felsenstein,et al.  Invariants of phylogenies in a simple case with discrete states , 1987 .

[23]  David Penny,et al.  Cladograms Should Be Called Trees , 1984 .

[24]  J A Lake,et al.  A rate-independent technique for analysis of nucleic acid sequences: evolutionary parsimony. , 1987, Molecular biology and evolution.