Skip Navigation

Systematic Biology 2004 53(5):809-814; doi:10.1080/10635150490502595
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (3)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Mooers, A. O.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Mooers, A. O.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© 2004 Society of Systematic Biologists

Effects of Tree Shape on the Accuracy of Maximum Likelihood–Based Ancestor Reconstructions

Edited by Junhyong Kim: Associate Editor

Arne Ø. Mooers

Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University Burnaby, BC, Canada V5A 1S6; E-mail: amooers@sfu.ca

Received July 31, 2003; Revised October 5, 2003; Accepted November 26, 2003
The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

Ancestral state reconstruction is a powerful tool for testing theories of the order and timing of character evolution (Maddison, 1994, 1995; Yang et al., 1995; Schluter et al., 1997; Cunningham et al., 1998). Reconstruction methods that include explicit information both on the relative probabilities of change and the opportunity for change now exist for molecular sequences and amino acids (Yang et al., 1995; Koshi and Goldstein, 1996) and for both multistate discrete and continuous data (Martins, 1994, 1999; Schluter, 1995; Schluter et al., 1997; Pagel, 1997, 1999, personal communication; Mooers and Schluter, 1999). These latter model-based methods have been utilized successfully in ecological and evolutionary studies (see, e.g., Ryan and Rand, 1999; Hoekstra and Edwards, 2000; Morales, 2000; Matyjasiak et al., 2000; Oakley and Cunningham, 2002; Berendonk et . . . [Full Text of this Article]


    Methods
 
Reconstructions
Tree Shapes and Rates

    Results
 

    Discussion
 

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Syst BiolHome page
G. Li, M. Steel, and L. Zhang
More Taxa Are Not Necessarily Better for the Reconstruction of Ancestral Character States
Syst Biol, August 1, 2008; 57(4): 647 - 653.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Bot.Home page
A. Vanderpoorten, F. J. Rumsey, and M. A. Carine
Does Macaronesia exist? Conflicting signal in the bryophyte and pteridophyte floras
Am. J. Botany, April 1, 2007; 94(4): 625 - 639.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Syst BiolHome page
A. Vanderpoorten and B. Goffinet
Mapping Uncertainty and Phylogenetic Uncertainty in Ancestral Character State Reconstruction: An Example in the Moss Genus Brachytheciastrum
Syst Biol, December 1, 2006; 55(6): 957 - 971.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]