No compromise on consensus

TAXONVolume 50, Issue 1 p. 181-184 Point of ViewFull Access No compromise on consensus Mark Wilkinson, Corresponding Author Mark Wilkinson [email protected] Department of Zoology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road London SW7 5BD, U.K. E-mail: [email protected] (author for correspondence).Search for more papers by this authorJoseph L. Thorley, Joseph L. Thorley [email protected] School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 1UG U.K.Search for more papers by this author Mark Wilkinson, Corresponding Author Mark Wilkinson [email protected] Department of Zoology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road London SW7 5BD, U.K. E-mail: [email protected] (author for correspondence).Search for more papers by this authorJoseph L. Thorley, Joseph L. Thorley [email protected] School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 1UG U.K.Search for more papers by this author First published: 01 February 2001 https://doi.org/10.2307/1224519Citations: 1AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Literature cited Adams, E. N. 1972. Consensus techniques and the comparison of taxonomic trees. Syst. Zool. 21: 390–397. Adams, E. N. 1986. N–trees as nestings: complexity, similarity and consensus. J. Classif. 3: 299–317. Farris, J. S., Albert, V. A., Källersjö, M., Lipscomb, D. & Kluge, A. G. 1996. Parsimony jackknifing outperforms neighbor-joining. Cladistics 12: 99–124. Felsenstein, J. 1985. Confidence limits on phylogenies: an approach using the bootstrap. Evolution 39: 783–791. Gordon, A. D. 1980. On the assessment and comparison of classifications. Pp. 149–160 in: R. Tomasson (ed.), Analyse de Donnees et Informatique. LeChesnay. Gower, D. J. & Wilkinson, M. 1996. Is there any consensus on basal archosaur phylogeny? Proc. Roy. Soc. B 263: 1399–1406. Kitching, I. J., Forey, P., Humphries, C. J., & Williams, D. M. 1998. Cladistics: the theory and practice of parsimony analysis. Oxford. Nelson, G. & Platnick, N. I. 1980. Multiple branching in cladograms: two interpretations, Syst. Zool. 29: 86–91. Nixon, K. C. & Carpenter, J. M. 1996. On consensus, collapsability and clade concordance. Cladistics 12: 305–201. Nixon, K. C. & Wheeler, Q. D. 1992. Extinction and the origin of species. Pp. 120–143 in: M. J. Novacek & Q. D. Wheeler (eds.), Extinction and phylogeny. New York. Page, R. D. M. 1992. Comments on the information content of classifications. Cladistics 8: 87–95. Rohlf, F. J. 1982. Consensus indices for comparing classifications. Math. Biosci. 59: 131–144. Swofford, D. L. 1991. When are phylogeny estimates from molecular and morphological data incongruent? Pp. 295–333 in: M. M. Miyamoto & J. Cracraft (eds.), Phylogenetic analysis of DNA sequences. Oxford. Thorley, J. L., Wilkinson, M. & Charleston, M. A. 1998. The information content of consensus trees. Pp. 91–98 in: A. Rizzi, M. Vichi & H.-H. Bock (eds.), Advances in data science and classification. Berlin. Wilkinson, M. 1994. Common cladistic information and its consensus representation: reduced Adams and reduced cladistic consensus trees and profiles. Syst. Biol. 43: 343–368. Wilkinson, M. 1996. Majority-rule reduced consensus methods and their use in bootstrapping. Molec. Biol. Evol. 13: 437–444. Wilkinson, M. 1999. Choosing and interpreting a tree for the oldest mammal. J. Vert. Paleont. 19: 187–190. Wilkinson, M. & Benton, M. J. 1996. Sphenodontid phylogeny and the problems of multiple trees. Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. B 351: 1–16. Citing Literature Volume50, Issue1February 2001Pages 181-184 ReferencesRelatedInformation