These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
4. Is the general time-reversible model bad for molecular phylogenetics? Sumner JG; Jarvis PD; Fernández-Sánchez J; Kaine BT; Woodhams MD; Holland BR Syst Biol; 2012 Dec; 61(6):1069-74. PubMed ID: 22442193 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. A call for likelihood phylogenetics even when the process of sequence evolution is heterogeneous. Gaucher EA; Miyamoto MM Mol Phylogenet Evol; 2005 Dec; 37(3):928-31. PubMed ID: 16291095 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Fundamental differences between the methods of maximum likelihood and maximum posterior probability in phylogenetics. Svennblad B; Erixon P; Oxelman B; Britton T Syst Biol; 2006 Feb; 55(1):116-21. PubMed ID: 16507528 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Choosing the best genes for the job: the case for stationary genes in genome-scale phylogenetics. Collins TM; Fedrigo O; Naylor GJ Syst Biol; 2005 Jun; 54(3):493-500. PubMed ID: 16012114 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Investigating stagnation in morphological phylogenetics using consensus data. Harris SR; Pisani D; Gower DJ; Wilkinson M Syst Biol; 2007 Feb; 56(1):125-9. PubMed ID: 17366142 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Paraphyly-again!? A plea against the dissociation of taxonomy and phylogenetics. Zachos FE Zootaxa; 2014 Feb; 3764():594-6. PubMed ID: 24870659 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Supertrees join the mainstream of phylogenetics. Cotton JA; Wilkinson M Trends Ecol Evol; 2009 Jan; 24(1):1-3. PubMed ID: 19022523 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Morphometrics and phylogenetics: principal components of shape from cranial modules are neither appropriate nor effective cladistic characters. Adams DC; Cardini A; Monteiro LR; O'Higgins P; Rohlf FJ J Hum Evol; 2011 Feb; 60(2):240-3. PubMed ID: 20303142 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. A comment on the use of stochastic character maps to estimate evolutionary rate variation in a continuously valued trait. Revell LJ Syst Biol; 2013 Mar; 62(2):339-45. PubMed ID: 23027088 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. More taxa are not necessarily better for the reconstruction of ancestral character states. Li G; Steel M; Zhang L Syst Biol; 2008 Aug; 57(4):647-53. PubMed ID: 18709600 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Of clades and clans: terms for phylogenetic relationships in unrooted trees. Wilkinson M; McInerney JO; Hirt RP; Foster PG; Embley TM Trends Ecol Evol; 2007 Mar; 22(3):114-5. PubMed ID: 17239486 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. How can we improve accuracy of macroevolutionary rate estimates? Stadler T Syst Biol; 2013 Mar; 62(2):321-9. PubMed ID: 22962038 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Is the tree of life the best metaphor, model, or heuristic for phylogenetics? Morrison DA Syst Biol; 2014 Jul; 63(4):628-38. PubMed ID: 24671618 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Support versus corroboration. Egan MG J Biomed Inform; 2006 Feb; 39(1):72-85. PubMed ID: 16410056 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Model misspecification not the node-density artifact. Venditti C; Pagel M Evolution; 2008 Aug; 62(8):2125-6. PubMed ID: 18452579 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Experimental design criteria in phylogenetics: where to add taxa. Geuten K; Massingham T; Darius P; Smets E; Goldman N Syst Biol; 2007 Aug; 56(4):609-22. PubMed ID: 17654365 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Properties of supertree methods in the consensus setting. Wilkinson M; Cotton JA; Lapointe FJ; Pisani D Syst Biol; 2007 Apr; 56(2):330-7. PubMed ID: 17464887 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]