Premium
ON CONSENSUS, CONFIDENCE, AND “TOTAL EVIDENCE”
Author(s) -
Page Roderic D.M.
Publication year - 1996
Publication title -
cladistics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.323
H-Index - 92
eISSN - 1096-0031
pISSN - 0748-3007
DOI - 10.1111/j.1096-0031.1996.tb00194.x
Subject(s) - citation , library science , genealogy , history , world wide web , computer science
The issue of whether it is best to combine separate data sets (“total evidence”), or to combine trees (“taxonomic congruence”) has received considerable attention in the recent literature (e.g. Kluge, 1989; Barrett et al. 1991; Kluge and Wolf, 1993; Miyamoto and Fitch, 1995). In this note I discuss some recent arguments that have been made regarding this issue, starting with Barrett et al.’s (1991) argument against consensus methods. I then touch on bootstrapping and the problem of confidence sets of trees (Sanderson, 1989), before considering the implication of the difference between gene trees and species trees for the concept of total evidence. The common theme underlying these topics is the role of consensus in systematics. Consensus trees are very useful tools, but they have their limits. However, the nature of these limits is still being explored.