Taxon sampling revisited (original) (raw)

Nature volume 398, pages 299–300 (1999)Cite this article

Abstract

Phylogenies that include long, unbranched lineages can be difficult to reconstruct. This is because long-branch taxa (such as rapidly evolving species) may share character states by chance more often than more closely related taxa share derived character states through common ancestry1. Despite Kim's warning that added taxa can decrease accuracy2, some authors have argued that the negative impact of this error, called ‘long-branch attraction’, is minimized when slowly evolving lineages are included to subdivide long branches3,4,5. From this they have concluded that increasing the number of species sampled per lineage results in better accuracy than increasing the number of characters per species6. We find, using computer simulations, that adding characters can be the more favourable strategy, even for long-branched trees, and that adding slowly evolving taxa to subdivide long branches can reduce accuracy.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

$199.00 per year

only $3.90 per issue

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Additional access options:

Figure 1: Modelling of phylogenetic strategies.

References

  1. Felsenstein, J. Syst. Zool. 27, 401–410 (1978).
    Google Scholar
  2. Kim, J. Syst. Biol. 45, 363–374 (1996).
    Google Scholar
  3. Hendy, M. & Penny, D. Syst. Zool. 38, 297–309 (1989).
    Google Scholar
  4. Hillis, D. M. Nature 383, 130 (1996).
    Article Google Scholar
  5. Swofford, D. L., Olsen, G. J., Waddel, P. J. & Hillis, D. M. in Molecular Systematics 2nd edn (eds Hillis, D. M., Moritz, C. & Mable, B. K.) 407-514 (Sinauer, 1996).
  6. Graybeal, A. Syst. Biol. 47, 9–17 (1998).
    Google Scholar
  7. Waddel, P. Statistical Methods of Phylogenetic Analysis. Thesis, Massey Univ. (1995).
  8. Yang, Z. J. Mol. Evol. 42, 294–307 (1996).
    Google Scholar
  9. Cavender, J. A. & Felsenstein, J. J. Class. 4, 57–71 (1987).
    Google Scholar
  10. Swofford, D. L. PAUP developmental versions (Sinauer, 1998).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Amphibians and Reptiles, MRC 162, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC 20560, USA
    Steven Poe
  2. Department of Zoology and Texas Memorial Museum, University of Texas, Austin, 78712, Texas, USA
    Steven Poe
  3. Laboratory of Molecular Systematics, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, 20560, DC, USA
    David L. Swofford

Authors

  1. Steven Poe
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
  2. David L. Swofford
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Poe, S., Swofford, D. Taxon sampling revisited.Nature 398, 299–300 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1038/18592

Download citation