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

Incongruence between different data sets remains one of the central issues in systematics. Numerous tree- based and character-based tests to identify incongruence have been developed, and each has strengths and weaknesses (e.g., for reviews, see Cunningham 1997a; Johnson and Soltis 1998 ). Currently, one of the most widely used methods for evaluating incongruence within a parsimony framework is the homogeneity test of Farris et al. (1995) , usually termed the incongruence length difference (ILD) test (Cunningham 1997a; but see Johnson and Soltis 1998 ) or the partition homogeneity Test (Swofford 2000 ). The test has been argued to produce more accurate results than other tests (Cunningham 1997a ) and is also easy to implement using PAUP* (Swofford 2000 )

Uninformative Characters and Apparent Conflict Between Molecules and Morphology