@ARTICLE{TreeBASE2Ref16536,
author = {Paul S. Manos and Pamela S. Soltis and Douglas E. Soltis and S. R. Manchester and S. H. Oh and Charles D. Bell and David L. Dilcher and Donald E. Stone},
title = {Phylogeny of Extant and Fossil Juglandaceae Inferred from the Integration of Molecular and Morphological Data Sets.},
year = {2006},
keywords = {},
doi = {10.1080/10635150701408523},
url = {},
pmid = {},
journal = {Systematic Biology},
volume = {56},
number = {3},
pages = {412--430},
abstract = {It is widely acknowledged that integrating fossils into data sets of extant taxa is imperative for proper placement of fossils, resolution of relationships, and a better understanding of character evolution. The importance of this process has been further magnified because of the crucial role of fossils in dating divergence times. Outstanding issues remain, including appropriate methods to place fossils in phylogenetic trees, the importance of molecules vs. morphology in these analyses, as well as the impact of potentially large amounts of missing data for fossil taxa. In this study we used the angiosperm clade Juglandaceae as a model for investigating methods of integrating fossils into a phylogenetic framework of extant taxa. The clade has a rich fossil record relative to low extant diversity, as well as a robust molecular phylogeny and morphological database for extant taxa. After combining fossil organ genera into composite, terminal taxa our objectives were to: 1) compare multiple methods for the integration of the fossils and extant taxa (including total evidence, molecular scaffolds, and molecular matrix representation with parsimony: MRP); 2) explore the impact of missing data (incomplete taxa and characters) and the weight of evidence for placing fossils on the topology; 3) simulate the phylogenetic effect of missing data using our molecular data sets; and 4) place fossils and compare the impact of single and multiple fossil constraints in estimating the age of clades. Despite large and variable amounts of missing data, each of the methods provided reasonable placement of both fossils and simulated ?artificial fossils? in the phylogeny previously inferred only from extant taxa. Three fossil taxa (Cruciptera simsonii, Paleoplatycarya wingii, and Platycarya americana) were placed in crown clades containing living taxa for which morphological affinities had previously been suggested based on descriptive morphology, whereas Polyptera manningii was placed as sister to two well established subclades. The position of Paleooreomunnea stoneana was ambiguous with total evidence, but conclusive with DNA scaffolds and MRP. There was less disturbance of relationships among extant taxa using a total evidence approach, and the DNA scaffold approach did not provide improved resolution or internal support for clades compared to total evidence, whereas weighted MRP retained comparable levels of support, but lost crown clade resolution. Multiple calibration points generally provided reasonable age estimates, but the use of single constraints provided by extinct genera tended to underestimate clade ages.}
}
Taxa for matrix 19428 of Study 1714

Citation title:
"Phylogeny of Extant and Fossil Juglandaceae Inferred from the Integration of Molecular and Morphological Data Sets.".

This study was previously identified under the legacy study ID S1677
(Status: Published).
Taxa
Return to matrix row view
| ID |
Taxon Label |
NCBI taxid |
uBIO namebankID |
| 1294545 |
Agrobacterium tumefaciens C5A |
358
|
2553817
|
| 1294564 |
Burkholderia gladioli BSR3 YP 004348376 |
28095
|
2554631
|
| 1294556 |
Burkholderia gladioli BSR3 YP 004359059 |
28095
|
2554631
|
| 1294528 |
Burkholderia gladioli BSR3 YP 004362835 |
28095
|
2554631
|
| 1294557 |
Burkholderia gladioli3848s contig16 |
28095
|
2554631
|
| 1294554 |
Burkholderia gladioli3848s contig265 |
28095
|
2554631
|
| 1294562 |
Burkholderia glumae AU6208 1 |
337
|
2554633
|
| 1294539 |
Burkholderia glumae AU6208 2 |
337
|
2554633
|
| 1294560 |
Burkholderia glumae AU6208 3 |
337
|
2554633
|
| 1294553 |
Burkholderia glumae AU6208 4 |
337
|
2554633
|
| 1294555 |
Burkholderia glumae BGR1 YP 002907865 |
337
|
2554633
|
| 1294540 |
Burkholderia glumae BGR1 YP 002907919 |
337
|
2554633
|
| 1294534 |
Burkholderia glumae BGR1 YP 002908402 |
337
|
2554633
|
| 1294529 |
Burkholderia glumae BGR1 YP 002908734 |
337
|
2554633
|
| 1294541 |
Burkholderia glumae BGR1 YP 002910292 |
337
|
2554633
|
| 1294532 |
Burkholderia glumae LMG2196 1 Contig156 |
337
|
2554633
|
| 1294531 |
Burkholderia glumae LMG2196 2 Contig4 |
337
|
2554633
|
| 1294559 |
Burkholderia glumae LMG2196 3 Contig26 |
337
|
2554633
|
| 1294535 |
Burkholderia glumae LMG2196 4 Contig199 |
337
|
2554633
|
| 1294544 |
Burkholderia glumae32525 contig300 |
337
|
2554633
|
| 1294538 |
Burkholderia glumae32525 contig36 |
337
|
2554633
|
| 1294552 |
Burkholderia glumae32525 contig468 |
337
|
2554633
|
| 1294543 |
Burkholderia glumae32525 contig64 |
337
|
2554633
|
| 1294530 |
Burkholderia pseudomallei T6SS1 |
28450
|
2554642
|
| 1294551 |
Burkholderia pseudomallei T6SS2 |
28450
|
2554642
|
| 1294549 |
Burkholderia pseudomallei T6SS3 |
28450
|
2554642
|
| 1294536 |
Burkholderia pseudomallei T6SS4 |
28450
|
2554642
|
| 1294542 |
Burkholderia pseudomallei T6SS5 |
28450
|
2554642
|
| 1294561 |
Burkholderia pseudomallei T6SS6 |
28450
|
2554642
|
| 1294548 |
Burkholderia thailandensis T6SS1 |
57975
|
2554647
|
| 1294550 |
Burkholderia thailandensis T6SS2 |
57975
|
2554647
|
| 1294537 |
Burkholderia thailandensis T6SS4 |
57975
|
2554647
|
| 1294563 |
Burkholderia thailandensis T6SS5 |
57975
|
2554647
|
| 1294533 |
Burkholderia thailandensis T6SS6 |
57975
|
2554647
|
| 1294558 |
Ralstonia eutropha YP 725168 |
381666
|
2558192
|
| 1294546 |
Ralstonia eutropha YP 841946 |
53482
|
2558192
|
| 1294547 |
Vibrio cholerae O1 |
666
|
2559884
|