ArticleBiology letters2018
Parsimony, not Bayesian analysis, recovers more stratigraphically congruent phylogenetic trees.
Article in Biology letters, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed.
- Estimating Divergence Times and Diversification Rates with the Unresolved Fossilized Birth-Death Process.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Macroevolutionary trends in Ceratosauria body size: insights of phylogenetic comparative methods.BMC ecology and evolution · 2025Article
- Bounding the Softwired Parsimony Score of a Phylogenetic Network.Bulletin of mathematical biology · 2024Article
- Robust Analysis of Phylogenetic Tree Space.Systematic biology · 2022Article
- Review
- The Phylogeny of Rays and Skates (Chondrichthyes: Elasmobranchii) Based on Morphological Characters Revisited.Diversity · 2022Article
- Molecular phylogenies map to biogeography better than morphological ones.Communications biology · 2022Article
- A Method for Improving the Prediction of Outpatient Visits for Hospital Management: Bayesian Autoregressive Analysis.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 2022Article
- Fossils improve phylogenetic analyses of morphological characters.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2021Article
- Article
- The Making of Calibration Sausage Exemplified by Recalibrating the Transcriptomic Timetree of Jawed Vertebrates.Frontiers in genetics · 2021Article
- Article
- The phylogeny of early amniotes and the affinities of Parareptilia and Varanopidae.Nature ecology & evolution · 2020Article
- Which morphological characters are influential in a Bayesian phylogenetic analysis? Examples from the earliest osteichthyans.Biology letters · 2019Article
- Article
- Parsimony, not Bayesian analysis, recovers more stratigraphically congruent phylogenetic trees.Biology letters · 2018Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Reconstructing evolutionary histories requires accurate phylogenetic trees. Recent simulation studies suggest that probabilistic phylogenetic analyses of morphological data are more accurate than traditional parsimony techniques. Here, we use empirical data to compare Bayesian and parsimony phylogenies in terms of their congruence with the distribution of age ranges of the component taxa. Analysis of 167 independent morphological data matrices of fossil tetrapods finds that Bayesian trees exhibit significantly lower stratigraphic congruence than the equivalent parsimony trees. As such, taking stratigraphic data as an independent benchmark indicates that parsimony analyses are more accurate for phylogenetic reconstruction of morphological data. The discrepancy between simulated and empirical studies may result from historic data peaking practices or some complexities of empirical data as yet unaccounted for.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.