Do model‐based phylogenetic analyses perform better than parsimony? A test with empirical data

@article{Rindal2011DoMP,
  title={Do model‐based phylogenetic analyses perform better than parsimony? A test with empirical data},
  author={Eirik Rindal and A. Brower},
  journal={Cladistics},
  year={2011},
  volume={27}
}
The use of model‐based methods to infer a phylogenetic tree from a given data set is frequently motivated by the truism that under certain circumstances the parsimony approach (MP) may produce incorrect topologies, while explicit model‐based approaches are believed to avoid this problem. In the realm of empirical data from actual taxa, it is not known (or knowable) how commonly MP, maximum‐likelihood or Bayesian inference are inaccurate. To test the perceived need for “sophisticated” model… Expand
Weighted parsimony outperforms other methods of phylogenetic inference under models appropriate for morphology
One of the lasting controversies in phylogenetic inference is the degree to which specific evolutionary models should influence the choice of methods. Model‐based approaches to phylogenetic inferenceExpand
Efficacy or convenience? Model‐based approaches to phylogeny estimation using morphological data
TLDR
It is found that although some taxa are shifted back to their “traditional” phylogenetic placement, other clades are disturbed and poor resolution and labile taxa indicate a need for further examination of the morphology and not a change in method. Expand
Homology assessment in parsimony and model‐based analyses: two sides of the same coin
TLDR
Although parsimony and model‐based analyses usually achieve concordant topological results, they may generate discordant inferences of character evolution from the same datasets, indicating that method selection has serious implications for evolutionary scenarios and classificatory arrangements. Expand
Comparative evaluation of maximum parsimony and Bayesian phylogenetic reconstruction using empirical morphological data
TLDR
The results, which were based on a large set of empirical matrices, corroborate recent findings that BI is less precise than MP and show that differences between both approaches were not influenced by increasing sample size. Expand
Assessing topological congruence among concatenation-based phylogenomic approaches in empirical datasets.
TLDR
Differences between methods were proportionally larger in datasets that analyze the relationships at higher taxonomic levels (particularly phyla and kingdoms), and independent of the number of characters included in the datasets. Expand
Quantification and relative severity of inflated branch-support values generated by alternative methods: an empirical example.
TLDR
A supermatrix of 272 terminals from Rubiaceae tribe Spermacoceae was used as an empirical example to quantify sources of error in heuristic parametric (Bayesian MCMC and maximum likelihood) phylogenetic analyses. Expand
Statistical Inconsistency of Maximum Parsimony for k-Tuple-Site Data
TLDR
This work will consider a blockwise approach to alignment analysis, namely the so-called k-tuple analyses, and shows that maximum parsimony is statistically inconsistent for k-Tuple-site data and five taxa. Expand
The jazz of cladistics*
TLDR
In this metaphorical ‘composition’, nine ‘dissonant chords’ related to the drowning out of cladistic performance are commented on, including the false assumption of the irrelevance of classification and clashes amongst cladists themselves. Expand
Dubious resolution and support from published sparse supermatrices: the importance of thorough tree searches.
TLDR
Ten sparse supermatrices wherein the original authors relied primarily or entirely upon maximum likelihood phylogenetic analyses implemented in RAxML and quantified branch support using the bootstrap are re-analyzed and four conclusions are drawn. Expand
Early Gnathostome Phylogeny Revisited: Multiple Method Consensus
TLDR
The findings consistently corroborate the paraphyly of placoderms, all ‘acanthodians’ as a paraphyletic stem group of chondrichthyans, Entelognathus as a stem gnathostome, and the Guiyu-lineage as stem sarcopterygians. Expand
...
1
2
3
4
5
...

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 23 REFERENCES
Performance of maximum parsimony and likelihood phylogenetics when evolution is heterogeneous
TLDR
It is shown that maximum likelihood and BMCMC can become strongly biased and statistically inconsistent when the rates at which sequence sites evolve change non-identically over time. Expand
The contest between parsimony and likelihood.
  • E. Sober
  • Biology, Medicine
  • Systematic biology
  • 2004
TLDR
In a “classic” phylogenetic inference problem, the observed taxa are assumed to be the leaves of a bifurcating tree and the goal is to infer just the “topology” of the tree, not amount of time between branching events, or amount of evolution that has taken place on branches, or character states of interior vertices. Expand
SUCCESS OF PHYLOGENETIC METHODS IN THE FOUR-TAXON CASE
The success of 16 methods of phylogenetic inference was examined using consis? tency and simulation analysis. Success?the frequency with which a tree-making method cor? rectly identified the trueExpand
Cases in which Parsimony or Compatibility Methods will be Positively Misleading
Felsenstein, J. (Department of Genetics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195) 1978. Cases in which parsimony or compatibility methods will be positively misleading. Syst. Zool.Expand
Parsimony, likelihood, and simplicity
TLDR
Parsimony can be justified by very different types of models—either very complex or very simple, which suggests that parsimony does have a unique place among methods of phylogenetic estimation. Expand
Likelihood, parsimony, and heterogeneous evolution.
TLDR
The authors recommended that results from parsimony, which they consider to be nonparametric, be reported alongside likelihood results, and proposed a mixture model, which was inconsistent but better than either parsimony or standard likelihood under heterotachy. Expand
A review of long‐branch attraction
TLDR
It is argued that since outgroup taxa almost always represent long branches and are as such a hazard towards misplacing long branched ingroup taxa, phylogenetic analyses should always be run with and without the outgroups included. Expand
Success of Parsimony in the Four‐Taxon Case: Long‐Branch Repulsion by Likelihood in the Farris Zone
TLDR
The accuracy of phylogenetic methods is reinvestigated for the four‐taxon case with a two‐ edge rate and a three‐edge rate and maximum likelihood methods are shown to be particularly prone to failure when closely related taxa have long branches. Expand
The relative performance of Bayesian and parsimony approaches when sampling characters evolving under homogeneous and heterogeneous sets of parameters
We tested whether it is beneficial for the accuracy of phylogenetic inference to sample characters that are evolving under different sets of parameters, using both Bayesian MCMC (Markov chain MonteExpand
GENERAL INCONSISTENCY CONDITIONS FOR MAXIMUM PARSIMONY: EFFECTS OF BRANCH LENGTHS AND INCREASING NUMBERS OF TAXA
Inconsistency of phylogenetic estimations refers to the property of certain estimation methods to converge on the positively wrong estimate with increasing amounts of data. This property, at leastExpand
...
1
2
3
...