@ARTICLE{TreeBASE2Ref2175,
author = {Link E. Olson and Trina E. Roberts and Eric J. Sargis},
title = {Networks, Trees, and Treeshrews: Assessing Support and Identifying Conflict with Multiple Loci and a Problematic Root.},
year = {2009},
keywords = {},
doi = {10.1093/sysbio/syp025},
url = {},
pmid = {},
journal = {Systematic Biology},
volume = {58},
number = {2},
pages = {257--270},
abstract = {Multiple unlinked genetic loci often provide a more comprehensive picture of evolutionary history than any single gene can, but analyzing multi-gene data presents particular challenges. Differing rates and patterns of nucleotide substitution, combined with the limited information available in any data set, can make it difficult to specify a model of evolution. In addition, conflict among loci can be the result of real differences in evolutionary process or of stochastic variance and errors in reconstruction. We used six presumably unlinked nuclear loci to investigate relationships within the mammalian family Tupaiidae (Scandentia), containing all but one of the extant tupaiid genera. We used a phylogenetic mixture model to analyze the concatenated data, and compared this to results using partitioned models. We found that more complex models were not necessarily preferred under tests using Bayes factors, and that model complexity affected both tree length and parameter variance. We also compared the results of single-gene and multi-gene analyses and used splits networks to analyze the source and degree of conflict among genes. Networks can show specific relationships that are inconsistent with each other; these conflicting and minority relationships, which are implicitly ignored or collapsed by traditional consensus methods, can be useful in identifying the underlying causes of topological uncertainty. In our data, conflict is concentrated around particular relationships, not widespread throughout the tree. This pattern is further clarified by considering conflict surrounding the root separately from conflict within the ingroup. Uncertainty in rooting may be because of the apparent evolutionary distance separating these genera and our outgroup, the tupaiid genus Dendrogale. Unlike a previous mitochondrial study, these nuclear data strongly suggest that the genus Tupaia is not monophyletic with respect to the monotypic Urogale, even when uncertainty about rooting is taken into account. These data concur with mtDNA on other relationships, including the close affinity of T. tana with the enigmatic T. splendidula and of T. belangeri with T. glis. We also discuss the taxonomic and biogeographic implications of these results.}
}
Matrix 3949 of Study 2238

Citation title:
"Networks, Trees, and Treeshrews: Assessing Support and Identifying Conflict with Multiple Loci and a Problematic Root.".

This study was previously identified under the legacy study ID S2248
(Status: Published).
Matrices
Title: Nuclear combined
Description: Legacy TreeBASE Matrix ID = M4268
Rows
|
Taxon Label |
Row Segments |
Characters 1?–30 |
| Dendrogale murina UAM 103000 |
(none)
|
ATTTCATACTTCGGTTGCATGAAGGCTGCT |
| Tupaia belangeri FMNH 165412 |
(none)
|
ATTTCATACTTCGGTTGCATGAAGGCTGCC |
| Tupaia belangeri MVZ 186408 |
(none)
|
ATTTCATACTTCGGTTGCATGAAGGCTGCC |
| Tupaia belangeri USNM 583857 |
(none)
|
ATTTCATACTTCGGTTGCATGAAGGCTGCC |
| Tupaia belangeri MVZ 186407 |
(none)
|
ATTTCATACTTCGGTTGCATGAAGGCTGCC |
| Tupaia belangeri USNM 583793 |
(none)
|
ATTTCATACTTCGGTTGCATGAAGGCTGCC |
| Tupaia dorsalis UMMZ 174427 |
(none)
|
ATTTCATACTTCGGTTGCATGAAGGCTGCC |
| Tupaia dorsalis UMMZ 174651 |
(none)
|
ATTTCATACTTCGGTTGCATGAAGGCTGCC |
| Tupaia glis MVZ 192180 |
(none)
|
ATTTCATACTTCGGTTGCATGAAGGCTGCC |
| Tupaia glis MVZ 192184 |
(none)
|
ATTTCATACTTCGGTTGCATGAAGGCTGCC |
| Tupaia gracilis USNZ 109023 |
(none)
|
ATTTCATACTTCGGTTGCATGAAGGCTGCC |
| Tupaia longipes JS M02b |
(none)
|
ATTTCATACTTCGGTTGCATGAAGGCTGCC |
| Tupaia minor USNZ 109751 |
(none)
|
ATTTCATACTTCGGTTGCATGAAGGCTGCC |
| Tupaia palawanensis FMNH 168969 |
(none)
|
ATTTCATACTTCGGTTGCATGAAGGCTGCC |
| Tupaia splendidula UMMZ 174429 |
(none)
|
ATTTCATACTTCGGTTGCATGAAGGCTGCC |
| Tupaia splendidula UMMZ 174428 |
(none)
|
ATTTCATACTTCGGTTGCATGAAGGCTGCC |
| Tupaia splendidula UMMZ 174652 |
(none)
|
ATTTCATACTTCGGTTGCATGAAGGCTGCC |
| Tupaia tana MVZ 192913 |
(none)
|
ATTTCATACTTCGGTTGCATGAAGGCTGCT |
| Tupaia tana JS M11 |
(none)
|
ATTTCATACTTCGGTTGCATGAAGGCTGCT |
| Tupaia tana USNZ 109046 |
(none)
|
ATTTCATACTTCGGTTGCATGAAGGCTGCT |
| Tupaia tana USNZ 109850 |
(none)
|
ATTTCATACTTCGGTTGCATGAAGGCTGCT |
| Urogale everetti FMNH 147781 |
(none)
|
ATTTCATACTTCGGTTGCATGAAGGCTGCC |
Columns
None of the columns has a description.