Quick Search:    advanced search

GSW Home   GeoRef Home   My GSW Alerts   Contact GSW   About GSW   Journals List   Help

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (6) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Sumrall, C. D. Articles by Merck, J. W. Search for Related Content GeoRef GeoRef Citation

Global lability, regional resolution, and majority-rule consensus bias

¹ Colin D. Sumrall.* Frederick and Amey Geier Collections and Research Center, Cincinnati Museum Center, 1720 Gilbert Avenue, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
² Christopher A. Brochu.* Department of Geology, Field Museum of Natural History, 1400 South Lake Shore Drive, Chicago, Illinois 60605. cbrochu{at}fmppr.fmnh.org
³ John W. Merck Jr. College Park Scholars, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742
⁴ *Present address: Department of Geoscience, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa 52242
⁵ Corresponding author

Evolutionary interpretation of paleontological patterns requires a hypothesis of phylogeny, but our phylogenetic hypotheses may not perfectly mirror organismal phylogeny. Tree summary methods less conservative than strict consensus may increase resolution, but these methods may present a biased summary of the full set of most parsimonious trees. When we fail to acknowledge all equally optimal topologies, we risk disregarding trees that are closer to the correct phylogeny. We discuss a case where two subsets of trees were recovered in the set of most parsimonious trees, each with a profoundly different interpretation of character evolution near the root of Echinodermata. This was caused by the presence of a bimodally labile taxon in the matrix with two different topological subsets, each equally parsimonious but differing in the number of consistent trees. Majority-rule consensus favors the subset with the largest number of trees consistent with the placement of the rogue taxon. This bias favors clusters not because of the biological implications of the tree, but on the basis of great inequality in the sizes of the islands of parsimony. We thus recommend that majority-rule consensus trees not be used to summarize the results of a phylogenetic analysis.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				RESOLUTION, SAMPLING, HIGHER TAXA AND ASSUMPTIONS IN STRATOCLADISTIC ANALYSIS Journal of Paleontology, January 1, 2003; 77(1): 189 - 194.

				A REVISION OF NOVACYSTIS HAWKESI PAUL AND BOLTON 1991 (MIDDLE SILURIAN: GLYPTOCYSTITIDA, ECHINODERMATA) AND THE PHYLOGENY OF EARLY CALLOCYSTITIDS Journal of Paleontology, July 1, 2002; 76(4): 733 - 740.