2006
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2148-6-93
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Untitled

Abstract: Background:The higher-level phylogeny of placental mammals has long been a phylogenetic Gordian knot, with disagreement about both the precise contents of, and relationships between, the extant orders. A recent MRP supertree that favoured 'outdated' hypotheses (notably, monophyly of both Artiodactyla and Lipotyphla) has been heavily criticised for including low-quality and redundant data. We apply a stringent data selection protocol designed to minimise these problems to a much-expanded data set of morphologic… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

2
47
0

Year Published

2007
2007
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1
1

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 98 publications
(49 citation statements)
references
References 65 publications
(128 reference statements)
2
47
0
Order By: Relevance
“…[70] or Eizirik et al . [36]. The inferred relationships reflect current opinion for the group, with Proteles cristata and Crocuta crocuta forming successive sister species to the remaining species [70], which alternate between being placed in the same ( Hyaena ; [13]) or different genera ( Hyaena and Parahyaena ; [14]).…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 60%
“…[70] or Eizirik et al . [36]. The inferred relationships reflect current opinion for the group, with Proteles cristata and Crocuta crocuta forming successive sister species to the remaining species [70], which alternate between being placed in the same ( Hyaena ; [13]) or different genera ( Hyaena and Parahyaena ; [14]).…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 60%
“…Branch lengths were calculated from estimated divergence times of the different nodes taken from the literature, because characters and clustering methods used to construct trees might have been different and thus might have affected branch lengths. Phylogenetic trees were constructed from Vidal and Hedges [68], Mulcahy et al [69] and Amer and Kumazawa [70] for squamates; Hackett et al [71] for birds; Marjanovic and Laurin [72] and Clack [73] for non-amniote tetrapods; Bennett [74] and Nesbitt [75] for non-dinosaurian archosaurs; Pisani et al [76] and Brusatte et al [77] for tyrannosaurid dinosaurs; Yates [78]–[79]; Sereno [80]; Allain and Aquesbi [81]; Remes et al [82] for Sauropodomorpha and Beck et al [83] and Perelman et al [84] for mammals using Mesquite v. 2.75 [80]. Additional information on node divergence times was taken from Benton et al [85] and Müller and Reisz [86].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In fact, to avoid a possible effect of tree topology used on the results, we also conducted the analyses using alternative tree topologies among the published mammalian phylogenies [90], [91], [92], [93] and different tree topologies at family level, and obtained the same results.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%