Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T12:41:21.074Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Part IV - How to Study Classification

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 July 2020

David M. Williams  and
Malte C. Ebach
David M. Williams
Affiliation:
Natural History Museum, London
Malte C. Ebach
Affiliation:
University of New South Wales, Sydney
Get access
Type
Chapter
Information
Cladistics
A Guide to Biological Classification
 , pp. 213 - 350
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Primary Sources

Nelson, GJ. & Platnick, NI. 1991. Three-taxon statements: a more precise use of parsimony? Cladistics 7: 351–366.Google Scholar
Harvey, AW. 1992. Three-taxon statements: more precisely, an abuse of parsimony? Cladistics 8: 345–354.Google Scholar
Nelson, GJ. 1992. Reply to Harvey. Cladistics 8: 355–360.Google Scholar
Nelson, GJ. & Ladiges, PY. 1992. Information content and fractional weight of three-taxon statements. Systematic Biology 41: 490–494.Google Scholar
Kluge, AG. 1993. Three-taxon transformation in phylogenetic inference: ambiguity and distortion as regards explanatory power. Cladistics 9: 246–259.Google Scholar
Nelson, GJ. 1993. Reply. Cladistics 9: 261–265.Google Scholar
Nelson, GJ. & Ladiges, PY. 1993. Missing data and three-item analysis. Cladistics 9: 111–113.Google Scholar
Platnick, NI. 1993. Character optimization and weighting: differences between the standard and three-taxon approaches to phylogenetic inference. Cladistics 9: 267–272.Google Scholar
Kluge, AG. 1994. Moving targets and shell games. Cladistics 10: 403–413.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, M. 1994. Three-taxon statements: when is a parsimony analysis also a clique analysis? Cladistics 10: 221–223.Google Scholar
Farris, JS., Kallersjo, M., Albert, VA., Allard, M., Anderberg, A., Bowditch, B., Bult, C, Carpenter, JM., Crowe, TM., De Laet, J., Fitzhugh, K., Frost, D., Goloboff, P., Humphries, CJ., Jondelius, U., Judd, D., Karis, PO., Lipscomb, D., Luckow, M., Mindell, D., Muona, J., Nixon, K., Presch, W., Seberg, O., Sidall, ME., Struwe, L., Tehler, A., Wenzel, J., Wheeler, Q. & Wheeler, W. 1995. Explanation. Cladistics 11: 211–218.Google Scholar
Deleporte, P. 1996. Three-taxon statements and phylogeny construction. Cladistics 12: 273–289.Google Scholar
Nelson, GJ. 1996. Nullius in Verba. Published by the Author. New York. and Journal of Comparative Biology 1: 141–152.Google Scholar
Platnick, NI., Humphries, CJ., Nelson, GJ. & Williams, DM. 1996. Is Farris optimization perfect? Cladistics 12: 243–252.Google Scholar
Farris, JS. 1997. Cycles. Cladistics 13: 131–144.Google Scholar
Siebert, DJ. & Williams, DM. 1997. Book Review [Nullius in Verba]. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 60: 145–6.Google Scholar
De Laet, J. & Smets, E. 1998. On the TTSC–FTSC formulation of standard parsimony. Cladistics 14: 239–248.Google Scholar
De Laet, J. & Smets, E. 1998. On the three-taxon approach to parsimony analysis. Cladistics 14: 363–381.Google Scholar
Farris, JS. & Kluge, AG. 1998. A/The brief history of three-taxon analysis. Cladistics 14: 349–362.Google Scholar
Kitching, IJ., Forey, PL., Humphries, CJ. & Williams, DM. 1998. Cladistics: The Theory and Practice of Parsimony Analysis. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 168–186.Google Scholar
Siebert, DJ. & Williams, DM. 1998. Recycled. Cladistics 14: 339–347.Google Scholar
Carine, MA. & Scotland, RW. 1999. Taxic and transformational homology: different ways of seeing. Cladistics 15: 121–129.Google Scholar
Kluge, AG. & Farris, JS. 1999. Taxic homology = Overall similarity. Cladistics 15: 205–212.Google Scholar
Carine, MA. & Scotland, RW. 2000. 68 taxa and 32 characters: resolving species relationships using morphological data. In: Morton, CM., Harley, MM. & Blackmore, S. (eds), Pollen and Spores: Morphology and Biology. Royal Botanic Garden, Kew, pp. 365–384.Google Scholar
Farris, JS. 2000a. Diagnostic efficiency of three-taxon analysis. Cladistics 16: 403–410.Google Scholar
Farris, JS. 2000b. Paraphyly, outgroups, and transformations. Cladistics 16: 425–429.Google Scholar
Scotland, RW. 2000a. Homology, coding and three-taxon statement analysis. In: Scotland, RW. & Pennington, RT. (eds) Homology and Systematics: Coding Characters for Phylogenetic Analysis. Taylor and Francis, London, pp. 145–182.Google Scholar
Scotland, RW. 2000b. Taxic homology and three-taxon statement analysis. Systematic Biology 49: 480–500.Google Scholar
Scotland, RW. & Carine, MA. 2000. Classification or phylogenetic estimates. Cladistics 16: 411–419.Google Scholar
Williams, DM. & Siebert, DJ. 2000. Characters, homology and three-item analysis. In: Scotland, RW. & Pennington, RT. (eds), Homology and Systematics: Coding Characters for Phylogenetic Analysis. Taylor and Francis, London, pp. 183–208.Google Scholar
Farris, JS., Kluge, AG. & De Laet, JE. 2001. Taxic revisions. Cladistics 17: 79–103.Google Scholar
Williams, DM. 2002. Parsimony and precision. Taxon 51: 143–149.Google Scholar

Secondary Sources

Nelson, GJ. & Platnick, NI. 1991. Three-taxon statements: a more precise use of parsimony? Cladistics 7: 351–366.Google Scholar
Harvey, AW. 1992. Three-taxon statements: more precisely, an abuse of parsimony? Cladistics 8: 345–354.Google Scholar
Nelson, GJ. 1992. Reply to Harvey. Cladistics 8: 355–360.Google Scholar
Nelson, GJ. & Ladiges, PY. 1992. Information content and fractional weight of three-taxon statements. Systematic Biology 41: 490–494.Google Scholar
Kluge, AG. 1993. Three-taxon transformation in phylogenetic inference: ambiguity and distortion as regards explanatory power. Cladistics 9: 246–259.Google Scholar
Nelson, GJ. 1993. Reply. Cladistics 9: 261–265.Google Scholar
Nelson, GJ. & Ladiges, PY. 1993. Missing data and three-item analysis. Cladistics 9: 111–113.Google Scholar
Platnick, NI. 1993. Character optimization and weighting: differences between the standard and three-taxon approaches to phylogenetic inference. Cladistics 9: 267–272.Google Scholar
Kluge, AG. 1994. Moving targets and shell games. Cladistics 10: 403–413.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, M. 1994. Three-taxon statements: when is a parsimony analysis also a clique analysis? Cladistics 10: 221–223.Google Scholar
Farris, JS., Kallersjo, M., Albert, VA., Allard, M., Anderberg, A., Bowditch, B., Bult, C, Carpenter, JM., Crowe, TM., De Laet, J., Fitzhugh, K., Frost, D., Goloboff, P., Humphries, CJ., Jondelius, U., Judd, D., Karis, PO., Lipscomb, D., Luckow, M., Mindell, D., Muona, J., Nixon, K., Presch, W., Seberg, O., Sidall, ME., Struwe, L., Tehler, A., Wenzel, J., Wheeler, Q. & Wheeler, W. 1995. Explanation. Cladistics 11: 211–218.Google Scholar
Deleporte, P. 1996. Three-taxon statements and phylogeny construction. Cladistics 12: 273–289.Google Scholar
Nelson, GJ. 1996. Nullius in Verba. Published by the Author. New York. and Journal of Comparative Biology 1: 141–152.Google Scholar
Platnick, NI., Humphries, CJ., Nelson, GJ. & Williams, DM. 1996. Is Farris optimization perfect? Cladistics 12: 243–252.Google Scholar
Farris, JS. 1997. Cycles. Cladistics 13: 131–144.Google Scholar
Siebert, DJ. & Williams, DM. 1997. Book Review [Nullius in Verba]. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 60: 145–6.Google Scholar
De Laet, J. & Smets, E. 1998. On the TTSC–FTSC formulation of standard parsimony. Cladistics 14: 239–248.Google Scholar
De Laet, J. & Smets, E. 1998. On the three-taxon approach to parsimony analysis. Cladistics 14: 363–381.Google Scholar
Farris, JS. & Kluge, AG. 1998. A/The brief history of three-taxon analysis. Cladistics 14: 349–362.Google Scholar
Kitching, IJ., Forey, PL., Humphries, CJ. & Williams, DM. 1998. Cladistics: The Theory and Practice of Parsimony Analysis. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 168–186.Google Scholar
Siebert, DJ. & Williams, DM. 1998. Recycled. Cladistics 14: 339–347.Google Scholar
Carine, MA. & Scotland, RW. 1999. Taxic and transformational homology: different ways of seeing. Cladistics 15: 121–129.Google Scholar
Kluge, AG. & Farris, JS. 1999. Taxic homology = Overall similarity. Cladistics 15: 205–212.Google Scholar
Carine, MA. & Scotland, RW. 2000. 68 taxa and 32 characters: resolving species relationships using morphological data. In: Morton, CM., Harley, MM. & Blackmore, S. (eds), Pollen and Spores: Morphology and Biology. Royal Botanic Garden, Kew, pp. 365–384.Google Scholar
Farris, JS. 2000a. Diagnostic efficiency of three-taxon analysis. Cladistics 16: 403–410.Google Scholar
Farris, JS. 2000b. Paraphyly, outgroups, and transformations. Cladistics 16: 425–429.Google Scholar
Scotland, RW. 2000a. Homology, coding and three-taxon statement analysis. In: Scotland, RW. & Pennington, RT. (eds) Homology and Systematics: Coding Characters for Phylogenetic Analysis. Taylor and Francis, London, pp. 145–182.Google Scholar
Scotland, RW. 2000b. Taxic homology and three-taxon statement analysis. Systematic Biology 49: 480–500.Google Scholar
Scotland, RW. & Carine, MA. 2000. Classification or phylogenetic estimates. Cladistics 16: 411–419.Google Scholar
Williams, DM. & Siebert, DJ. 2000. Characters, homology and three-item analysis. In: Scotland, RW. & Pennington, RT. (eds), Homology and Systematics: Coding Characters for Phylogenetic Analysis. Taylor and Francis, London, pp. 183–208.Google Scholar
Farris, JS., Kluge, AG. & De Laet, JE. 2001. Taxic revisions. Cladistics 17: 79–103.Google Scholar
Williams, DM. 2002. Parsimony and precision. Taxon 51: 143–149.Google Scholar
De Laet, J. 1997. A Reconsideration of Three-Item Analysis, the Use of Implied Weights in Cladistics, and a Practical Application in Gentianaceae. Ph.D. thesis, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.Google Scholar
Ebach, MC. & McNamara, KJ. 2002. A systematic revision of the family Harpetidae (Trilobita). Records of the Western Australian Museum 21: 135–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladiges, PY., McFadden, GI., Middleton, N., Orlovich, DA., Treloar, N. & Udovicic, F. 1999. Phylogeny of Melaleuca, Callistemon, and related genera of the Beaufortia suballiance (Myrtaceae) based on 5S and ITS-1 spacer regions of nrDNA. Cladistics 15: 151–172.Google Scholar
Nelson, GJ. & Ladiges, PY. 1994. Three-item consensus: empirical test of fractional weighting. In: Scotland, RW., Seibert, DJ. & Williams, DM. (eds), Models in Phylogeny Reconstruction. Systematics Association Special Volume 51. Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp. 193–209.Google Scholar
Patterson, C. & Johnson, GD. 1995. The intermuscular bones and ligaments of teleostean fishes. Smithsonian Contributions in Zoology 559: 1–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Udovicic, F., McFadden, GI. & Ladiges, PY. 1995. Phylogeny of Eucalyptus and Angophora based on 5s rDNA spacer sequence data. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 4: 247–256.Google Scholar
Williams, DM. 1996. Fossil species of the diatom genus Tetracyclus (Bacillariophyta, ‘ellipticus’ species group): Morphology, interrelationships and the relevance of ontogeny. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, London, Series B 351: 1759–1782.Google Scholar
Nelson, GJ. & Platnick, NI. 1991. Three-taxon statements: a more precise use of parsimony? Cladistics 7: 351–366.Google Scholar
Harvey, AW. 1992. Three-taxon statements: more precisely, an abuse of parsimony? Cladistics 8: 345–354.Google Scholar
Nelson, GJ. 1992. Reply to Harvey. Cladistics 8: 355–360.Google Scholar
Nelson, GJ. & Ladiges, PY. 1992. Information content and fractional weight of three-taxon statements. Systematic Biology 41: 490–494.Google Scholar
Kluge, AG. 1993. Three-taxon transformation in phylogenetic inference: ambiguity and distortion as regards explanatory power. Cladistics 9: 246–259.Google Scholar
Nelson, GJ. 1993. Reply. Cladistics 9: 261–265.Google Scholar
Nelson, GJ. & Ladiges, PY. 1993. Missing data and three-item analysis. Cladistics 9: 111–113.Google Scholar
Platnick, NI. 1993. Character optimization and weighting: differences between the standard and three-taxon approaches to phylogenetic inference. Cladistics 9: 267–272.Google Scholar
Kluge, AG. 1994. Moving targets and shell games. Cladistics 10: 403–413.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, M. 1994. Three-taxon statements: when is a parsimony analysis also a clique analysis? Cladistics 10: 221–223.Google Scholar
Farris, JS., Kallersjo, M., Albert, VA., Allard, M., Anderberg, A., Bowditch, B., Bult, C, Carpenter, JM., Crowe, TM., De Laet, J., Fitzhugh, K., Frost, D., Goloboff, P., Humphries, CJ., Jondelius, U., Judd, D., Karis, PO., Lipscomb, D., Luckow, M., Mindell, D., Muona, J., Nixon, K., Presch, W., Seberg, O., Sidall, ME., Struwe, L., Tehler, A., Wenzel, J., Wheeler, Q. & Wheeler, W. 1995. Explanation. Cladistics 11: 211–218.Google Scholar
Deleporte, P. 1996. Three-taxon statements and phylogeny construction. Cladistics 12: 273–289.Google Scholar
Nelson, GJ. 1996. Nullius in Verba. Published by the Author. New York. and Journal of Comparative Biology 1: 141–152.Google Scholar
Platnick, NI., Humphries, CJ., Nelson, GJ. & Williams, DM. 1996. Is Farris optimization perfect? Cladistics 12: 243–252.Google Scholar
Farris, JS. 1997. Cycles. Cladistics 13: 131–144.Google Scholar
Siebert, DJ. & Williams, DM. 1997. Book Review [Nullius in Verba]. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 60: 145–6.Google Scholar
De Laet, J. & Smets, E. 1998. On the TTSC–FTSC formulation of standard parsimony. Cladistics 14: 239–248.Google Scholar
De Laet, J. & Smets, E. 1998. On the three-taxon approach to parsimony analysis. Cladistics 14: 363–381.Google Scholar
Farris, JS. & Kluge, AG. 1998. A/The brief history of three-taxon analysis. Cladistics 14: 349–362.Google Scholar
Kitching, IJ., Forey, PL., Humphries, CJ. & Williams, DM. 1998. Cladistics: The Theory and Practice of Parsimony Analysis. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 168–186.Google Scholar
Siebert, DJ. & Williams, DM. 1998. Recycled. Cladistics 14: 339–347.Google Scholar
Carine, MA. & Scotland, RW. 1999. Taxic and transformational homology: different ways of seeing. Cladistics 15: 121–129.Google Scholar
Kluge, AG. & Farris, JS. 1999. Taxic homology = Overall similarity. Cladistics 15: 205–212.Google Scholar
Carine, MA. & Scotland, RW. 2000. 68 taxa and 32 characters: resolving species relationships using morphological data. In: Morton, CM., Harley, MM. & Blackmore, S. (eds), Pollen and Spores: Morphology and Biology. Royal Botanic Garden, Kew, pp. 365–384.Google Scholar
Farris, JS. 2000a. Diagnostic efficiency of three-taxon analysis. Cladistics 16: 403–410.Google Scholar
Farris, JS. 2000b. Paraphyly, outgroups, and transformations. Cladistics 16: 425–429.Google Scholar
Scotland, RW. 2000a. Homology, coding and three-taxon statement analysis. In: Scotland, RW. & Pennington, RT. (eds) Homology and Systematics: Coding Characters for Phylogenetic Analysis. Taylor and Francis, London, pp. 145–182.Google Scholar
Scotland, RW. 2000b. Taxic homology and three-taxon statement analysis. Systematic Biology 49: 480–500.Google Scholar
Scotland, RW. & Carine, MA. 2000. Classification or phylogenetic estimates. Cladistics 16: 411–419.Google Scholar
Williams, DM. & Siebert, DJ. 2000. Characters, homology and three-item analysis. In: Scotland, RW. & Pennington, RT. (eds), Homology and Systematics: Coding Characters for Phylogenetic Analysis. Taylor and Francis, London, pp. 183–208.Google Scholar
Farris, JS., Kluge, AG. & De Laet, JE. 2001. Taxic revisions. Cladistics 17: 79–103.Google Scholar
Williams, DM. 2002. Parsimony and precision. Taxon 51: 143–149.Google Scholar
Bininda-Emonds, ORP. (ed.) 2004a. Phylogenetic Supertrees: Combining Information to Reveal the Tree of Life. Kluwer/Academic Press, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
Cao, N., Zaragüeta i Bagils, R. & Vignes-Lebbe, R. 2007. Hierarchical representation of hypotheses of homology. Geodiversitas 29: 5–15.Google Scholar
Cao, N., Bourdon, E., El Azawi, M. & Zaragüeta i Bagils, R. 2009. Three-item analysis and parsimony, intersection tree and strict consensus: a biogeographical example. Bulletin de la Société Géologique de France 180: 13–15.Google Scholar
Ebach, MC. & Williams, DM. 2012 [2013]. E quindi uscimmo a riveder le stelle. Cladistics 29: 227.Google Scholar
Grand, A. 2013. Représentation sémantique des phénotypes: métamodèle et ontologies pour les caractères taxonomiques et phylogénétiques. Ph.D. thesis, MNHN Paris.Google Scholar
Mavrodiev, EV. 2015. Three-taxon analysis can always successfully recognize groups based on putative reversals. PeerJ PrePrints 3: e1206.Google Scholar
Mavrodiev, EV. 2016. Dealing with propositions, not with the characters: the ability of three-taxon statement analysis to recognise groups based solely on ‘reversals’, under the maximum-likelihood criteria. Australian Systematic Botany 29: 119–125.Google Scholar
Mavrodiev, EV. & Madorsky, A. 2012. TAXODIUM Version 1.0: a simple way to generate uniform and fractionally weighted three-item matrices from various kinds of biological data. PLoS One 7 (11): e48813.Google Scholar
Mavrodiev, EV. & Yurtseva, OV. 2017. “A character does not make a genus, but the genus makes the character”: three-taxon statement analysis and intuitive taxonomy. European Journal of Taxonomy 377: 1–7. https://doi.org/10.5852/ejt.2017.377Google Scholar
Mavrodiev, EV., Dell, C. & Schroder, L. 2017. A laid-back trip through the Hennigian Forests. PeerJ 5: e3578. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.3578Google Scholar
Mavrodiev, EV., Williams, DM. & Ebach, MC. 2019. On the typology of relations. Evolutionary Biology 46: 71–89.Google Scholar
Mooi, RD., Williams, DM. & Gill, A.C. 2011. Numerical cladistics, an unintentional refuge for phenetics – a reply to Wiley et al. Zootaxa 2946: 17–28.Google Scholar
Nelson, GJ., Williams, DM. & Ebach, MC. 2003. A question of conflict: three item and standard parsimony compared. Systematics & Biodiversity 1: 145–149.Google Scholar
Prin, S. 2012. Structure mathématique des hypothèses cladistiques et conséquences pour la phylogénie et l'évolution – Avec une perspective sur l'analyse cladistique. Ph.D. thesis, MNHN Paris.Google Scholar
Rineau, V., Grand, A., Zaragüeta i Bagils, R. & Laurin, M. 2015. Experimental systematics: sensitivity of cladistic methods to polarization and character ordering schemes. Contributions to Zoology 84: 129–148.Google Scholar
Rineau, V., Zaragüeta i Bagils, R. & Laurin, M. 2018. Impact of errors on cladistic inference: simulation-based comparison between parsimony and three-taxon analysis. Contributions to Zoology 87: 25–40.Google Scholar
Sevillya, G., Frenkel, Z. & Snir, S., 2016. TripletMaxCut: a new toolkit for rooted supertree. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 2016: 1359–1365.Google Scholar
Williams, DM. 2004. Homology and homologues, cladistics and phenetics: 150 years of progress. In: Williams, DM. & Forey, PL. (eds), Milestones in Systematics. Taylor & Francis, London, pp. 191–224.Google Scholar
Williams, DM. & Ebach, MC. 2005. Drowning by numbers: a new view on numerical phylogenetics. Botanical Reviews 71: 355–387.Google Scholar
Williams, DM. & Ebach, MC. 2006. The data matrix. Geodiversitas 28: 409–420.Google Scholar
Williams, DM. & Ebach, MC. 2008. The Foundations of Systematics & Biogeography. Springer-Verlag New York Inc., New York.Google Scholar
Williams, DM. & Ebach, MC. 2012. Confusing homologs as homologies: a reply to “On homology”. Cladistics 28: 223–224.Google Scholar
Williams, DM. & Ebach, MC. 2012. “Phenetics” and its application. Cladistics 28: 229–230.Google Scholar
Williams, DM. & Ebach, MC. 2017. What is intuitive taxonomic practice? Systematic Biology 66: 637–643.Google Scholar
Williams, DM. & Humphries, CJ. 2003. Component coding, three-item coding and consensus methods. Systematic Biology 52: 255–259.Google Scholar
Williams, DM., Schmitt, M. & Wheeler, Q. (eds) 2016. The Future of Phylogenetic Systematics: The Legacy of Willi Hennig. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
Zaragüeta i Bagils, R. & Bourdon, E. 2007. Three-item analysis: hierarchical representation and treatment of missing and inapplicable data. Compte Rendu Palevol 6: 527–534.Google Scholar
Zaragüeta i Bagils, R. & Pécaud, S. 2016. Why cladograms should be dichotomous? In: Williams, DM., Schmitt, M. & Wheeler, Q. (eds) The Future of Phylogenetic Systematics – The Legacy of Willi Hennig. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 230–257,Google Scholar
Zaragüeta i Bagils, R., Ung, V., Grand, A., Vignes-Lebbe, R., Cao, N. & Ducasse, J. 2012. LisBeth: new cladistics for phylogenetics and biogeography. Comptes Rendus Palevol 11: 563–566.Google Scholar
Cao, N. 2008. Analyse à trois elements et anatomie du bois des FAGALES Engl. Ph.D. dissertation, Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris.Google Scholar
Corvez, A. 2012. L’origine de la Mégaphylle chez les Monilophytes. Ph.D. dissertation, Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris, France.Google Scholar
Gill, AC. & Leis, JM. 2019. Phylogenetic position of the fish genera Lobotes, Datnioides and Hapalogenys, with a reappraisal of acanthuriform composition and relationships based on adult and larval morphology. Zootaxa 4680: 1–81.Google Scholar
Grand, A., Zaragüeta i Bagils, R., Vélezi, LM. & Ung, V. 2014. A cladistic re-analysis of the Gadiformes (Teleostei, Paracanthopterygii) using three-item analysis. Zootaxa 3889: 525–552.Google Scholar
Mavrodiev, EV., Martinez-Azorin, M., Dranishnikov, P. & Crespo, MB. 2014. At least 23 genera instead of one: the case of Iris L. s.l. (Iridaceae). PLoS One 9 (8): e106459.Google Scholar
Rineau, V. 2017. Un nouveau regard cladistique sur l'anatomie comparée, la systématique, la phylogénie et la paléoécologie des rudistes (Bivalvia, Hippuritidia). Ph.D. thesis, MNHN Paris.Google Scholar
Williams, DM. & Reid, G. 2006. Amphorotia nov. gen., a new genus in the family Eunotiaceae (Bacillariophyceae), based on Eunotia clevei Grunow in Cleve et Grunow. Diatom Monographs 6.Google Scholar
Yurtseva, OV., Severova, EE. & Mavrodiev, EV. 2017. Persepolium (Polygoneae): a new genus in Polygonaceae based on conventional Maximum Parsimony and Three-taxon statement analyses of a comprehensive morphological dataset. Phytotaxa 314: 151–194.Google Scholar
Zaragüeta i Bagils, R. 2002. Tests morphologique et moléculaire des hypothèses de phylogénie des Clupeomorpha (Teleostei). Ph.D. thesis, MNHN Paris.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×