A Comparison of Two Methods of Character Construction

Wilkinson, Mark

doi:10.1111/j.1096-0031.1995.tb00091.x

Cited by 150 publications

(169 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

158

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The criterion of independence of characters is a fundamental one in terms of hypothesis testing, making it a prerequisite for the congruence test to work in a falsificationist framework (Felsenstein, 1982;Farris, 1983;Pimentel and Riggins, 1987;de Pinna, 1991;Pleijel, 1995;Wilkinson, 1995;Hawkins et al, 1997;Kluge, 2003;Sereno, 2007). If two characters that are dependent on each other contribute to identifying a monophyletic group in an analysis, it is because their content information is the same; their congruence in a cladistic test does not arise because they support a most recent common ancestor for that grouping.…”

Section: Independence Of Charactersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As an example, numbers of characters are meaningless if the homologue concepts and character constructions fail the criterion, or test, of similarity (Remane, 1952;Patterson, 1982). Numerous previous authors have argued strenuously that character construction and characterstate coding is the key impactor of outcomes in cladistic research (Maddison, 1993;Pleijel, 1995;Wilkinson, 1995;Hawkins et al, 1997;Strong and Lipscomb, 1999;Sereno, 2007;Brazeau, 2011).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Giant taxon‐character matrices: quality of character constructions remains critical regardless of size

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Giant morphological data matrices are increasingly common in cladistic analyses of vertebrate phylogeny, reporting numbers of characters never seen or expected before. However, the concern for size is usually not followed by an equivalent, if any, concern for character construction/selection criteria. Therefore, the question of whether quantity parallels quality for such influential works remains open. Here, we provide the largest compilation known to us of character construction methods and criteria, as derived from previous studies, and from our own de novo conceptualizations. Problematic character constructions inhibit the capacity of phylogenetic analyses to recover meaningful homology hypotheses and thus accurate clade structures. Upon a revision of two of the currently largest morphological datasets used to test squamate phylogeny, more than one-third of the almost 1000 characters analysed were classified within at least one of our categories of "types" of characters that should be avoided in cladistic investigations. These characters were removed or recoded, and the data matrices re-analysed, resulting in substantial changes in the sister group relationships for squamates, as compared to the original studies. Our results urge caution against certain types of character choices and constructions, also providing a methodological basis upon which problematic characters might be avoided.

show abstract

Section: Independence Of Charactersmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Giant taxon‐character matrices: quality of character constructions remains critical regardless of size

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nevertheless, we verified these characters through direct examination of specimens whenever suitable material was available. Morphological characters were defined using a reductive approach, focusing on their logical independence (Wilkinson, 1995;Strong and Lipscomb, 1999). Discrete characters (i.e.…”

Section: Taxonomic Samplingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Phylogeny of the tribe Abrotrichini (Cricetidae, Sigmodontinae): integrating morphological and molecular evidence into a new classification

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The tribe Abrotrichini (five genera and 14 living species) is a small clade within the speciose subfamily Sigmodontinae (Rodentia, Cricetidae), representing one of the extant successful radiations of mammals at southern high latitudes of the Neotropics. Its distribution is mostly Andean, reaching its greatest diversity in southern Argentina and Chile. We evaluate the phylogenetic relationships within this tribe through parsimony and Bayesian approaches based on 99 morphological characters (including 19 integumental characters, 38 skull characters, 31 dental characters, three postcranial skeletal characters, seven from the male accessory glands and phallus and one from the digestive system) and six molecular markers (one mitochondrial and five nuclear). We include representatives of all, except one, of the currently recognized species of living Abrotrichini plus one fossil form. Based on total evidence, we recovered a primary division between the genus Abrothrix and a group including the long‐clawed Abrotrichini, Chelemys, Geoxus, Notiomys and Pearsonomys. Both clades are recognized and named here as subtribes. The large degree of morphological variation observed within Abrothrix suggests that species in the genus fall into four groups, which we recognize as subgenera. In addition, the two known species of Chelemys do not form a monophyletic group, and Geoxus was recovered as paraphyletic with respect to Pearsonomys. To reconcile classification and phylogenetics, we describe a new genus for Chelemys macronyx and include Pearsonomys as a junior synonym of Geoxus. Our results highlight the importance of both morphology and molecules in resolving the phylogenetic relationships within this tribe. Based on biogeographical analyses, we hypothesize that Abrotrichini originated in south‐western South America by vicariance and then diversified mostly by successive dispersal events.

show abstract

“…Thorpe, 1984;Thiele, 1993;Wiens, 2001;Catalano et al, 2010;Goloboff and Catalano, 2011), treatment of polymorphisms (e.g. Wiens, 1995Wiens, , 1998Smith and Gutberlet, 2001), the interpretation of complex structures as character complexes (Pleijel, 1995;Wilkinson, 1995;Lee and Bryant, 1999;Ram ırez and Michalik, 2014) and dealing with alternative hypotheses of morphological correspondence (e.g. Rieppel, 1996;Ram ırez, 2007).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Besides these aspects, issues related to the coding of phylogenetic characters in general and the treatment of character dependency in particular have received substantial attention (e.g. Hauser and Presch, 1989;Platnick et al, 1991;Maddison, 1993;Pleijel, 1995;Wilkinson, 1995;Hawkins et al, 1997;Lee and Bryant, 1999;Strong and Lipscomb, 1999;Sereno, 2007), and phylogeneticists commonly agree that character coding should result in states that are independent (=mutually exclusive distribution), non-redundant and putative synapomorphies (Pimentel and Riggins, 1987;Strong and Lipscomb, 1999). The quantitative methods that are commonly used for morphological phylogenetic analyses, as for instance parsimony-and likelihood-based algorithms, also require phylogenetic characters to represent independent variables, resulting in an atomization of an OTU's anatomy (e.g.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The logical basis for coding ontologically dependent characters

Vogt

2017

Cladistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The coding of dependent morphological characters represents a major methodological problem in phylogenetics. Based on a distinction of semantic and ontological logical character dependency, I suggest how inapplicables can be treated properly and introduce rules of mutually dependent character states, which specify how character states of one character determine character states in its ontologically dependent characters. Using various examples, I discuss a set of general rules that applies independently of whether the ontological dependency results from property instantiation, parthood or subsumption. When implemented in a matrix editor, these rules would significantly facilitate the coding procedure, speed up coding of large matrices and increase overall consistency. If implemented in algorithms for tree reconstruction, the rules would prevent inconsistent reconstructions of ancestral states, which is a common problem with inapplicables. In the second part of the paper I set out to explore the potential of using a semantic framework and semantic techniques for automatically detecting instances of ontological dependency and specific cases of semantic dependency and how they can be applied for automatically coding character state values for ontologically dependent characters using the general rules discussed in the first part of the paper. This approach utilizes graph‐based semantic representations of instance anatomy, which represent ontology‐based descriptions of the anatomical organization of individual organisms.

show abstract

A Comparison of Two Methods of Character Construction

Cited by 150 publications

References 5 publications

Giant taxon‐character matrices: quality of character constructions remains critical regardless of size

Giant taxon‐character matrices: quality of character constructions remains critical regardless of size

Phylogeny of the tribe Abrotrichini (Cricetidae, Sigmodontinae): integrating morphological and molecular evidence into a new classification

The logical basis for coding ontologically dependent characters

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About