TreeBASE Search-Trees for study 830

@ARTICLE{TreeBASE2Ref16026, author = {Kate E. Jones and Andy Purvis and Ann MacLarnon and Olaf R. P. Bininda-Emonds and Nancy B. Simmons}, title = {A phylogenetic supertree of the bats (Mammalia: Chiroptera).}, year = {2002}, keywords = {bats; evolution; matrix representation; parsimony; phylogeny; supertree construction}, doi = {10.1017/S1464793101005899}, url = {}, pmid = {}, journal = {Biological Reviews}, volume = {77}, number = {2}, pages = {223--259}, abstract = {We present the first estimate of the phylogenetic relationships among all 916 extant and 9 recently extinct species of bats (Mammalia: Chiroptera), a group that accounts for almost one-quarter of extant mammalian diversity. This phylogeny was derived by combining 105 estimates of bat phylogenetic relationships published since 1970 using the supertree construction technique of Matrix Representation with Parsimony (MRP). Despite the explosive growth in the number of phylogenetic studies of bats since 1990, phylogenetic relationships in the order have been studied non-randomly. For example, over one third of all bat systematic studies to date have focussed on relationships within Phyllostomidae, whereas relationships within clades such as Kerivoulinae and Murinae have never been studied using cladistic methods. Resolution in the supertree similarly differs among clades: overall resolution is poor (46.4% of a fully bifuricating solution) but reaches 100% in some groups (e.g., relationships within Mormoopidae). The supertree analysis does not support a recent proposal that Microchiroptera is paraphyletic with respect to Megachiroptera as the majority of source topologies support microbat monophyly. While it is not a substitute for comprehensive phylogenetic analyses of primary molecular and morphological data, the bat supertree provides a useful tool for future phylogenetic comparative and macroevolutionary studies. Additionally, it identifies clades that have been little studied, highlights groups within which relationships are controversial, and like all phylogenetic studies, provides preliminary hypotheses that can form starting points for future phylogenetic studies of bats.} }

Delicious

Connotea

Trees for Study 830

Citation title: "A phylogenetic supertree of the bats (Mammalia: Chiroptera).".

This study was previously identified under the legacy study ID S688 (Status: Published).

Trees

ID	Tree Label	Tree Title	Tree Type	Tree Kind	Taxa
Tr3970	Fig. 4.6	Pteropus	Consensus	Species Tree	View Taxa
Tr3974	Fig. 9	Rhinolophidae	Consensus	Species Tree	View Taxa
Tr3972	Fig. 8	Nycteridae	Consensus	Species Tree	View Taxa
Tr3980	Fig. 15.2	Miniopterinae	Single	Species Tree	View Taxa
Tr3968	Fig. 3 and 15.1	Chiroptera	Consensus	Species Tree	View Taxa
Tr3983	Fig. 15.14	Myotis	Consensus	Species Tree	View Taxa
Tr3971	Fig. 5	Emballonuridae	Consensus	Species Tree	View Taxa
Tr3973	Fig. 7	Megadermatidae	Consensus	Species Tree	View Taxa
Tr3975	Fig. 10	Hipposideridae	Consensus	Species Tree	View Taxa
Tr3979	Fig. 14	Molossidae	Consensus	Species Tree	View Taxa
Tr3982	Fig. 15.4	Murinae	Single	Species Tree	View Taxa
Tr3978	Fig. 13	Phyllostomidae	Consensus	Species Tree	View Taxa
Tr3977	Fig. 12	Mormoopidae	Consensus	Species Tree	View Taxa
Tr3969	Figs. 4.1 to 4.5	Pteropodidae	Consensus	Species Tree	View Taxa
Tr3976	Fig. 11	Natalidae	Single	Species Tree	View Taxa
Tr3981	Fig. 15.3	Kerivoulinae	Single	Species Tree	View Taxa