English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Tuffley and Steel (Bull. Math. Biol. 59:581-607, 1997) proved that maximum likelihood and maximum parsimony methods in phylogenetics are equivalent for sequences of characters under a simple symmetric model of substitution with no common mechanism. This result has been widely cited ever since. We show that small changes to the model assumptions suffice to make the two methods inequivalent. In particular, we analyze the case of bounded substitution probabilities as well as the molecular clock assumption. We show that in these cases, even under no common mechanism, maximum parsimony and maximum likelihood might make conflicting choices. We also show that if there is an upper bound on the substitution probabilities which is 'sufficiently small', every maximum likelihood tree is also a maximum parsimony tree (but not vice versa).

Revisiting an Equivalence Between Maximum Parsimony and Maximum Likelihood Methods in Phylogenetics