Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 1 Selected empirical supertree studies

From: A simulation study comparing supertree and combined analysis methods using SMIDGen

Group (Reference) Method Num. taxa Num. source trees Num. taxa in scaffold
Primates [34] Hierarchical MRP 203 112* 203 (100%) (taxonomy)
Carnivora [35] Hierarchical MRP 271 177* not given
Hologalegina [36] MRP (with topological constraints) 571 22 52 (9.1%)
Pinus [37] MRP 95 14 47 (49.5%)
Bacteria [38] wMRP 37 130-196 37 (100%)
Mammalia [39] MRP (large:small source trees weighted 4:1) 90 430 37 (41.1%)
Procellariiformes [40] MRP 122 7 90 (73.7%)
Chiroptera [41] Hierarchical MRP 916 105 not given
Poaceae [42] 1) wMRP (normal, purvis, and irreversible) 403 55 not given
  2) wMRP (c.a. source trees) 61 8 61 (100%)
Lagomorpha [43] MRP (robust:nonrobust source trees weighted 2.81:1) 80 146 not given
Lipotyphla [44] (w)MRP (most source trees were MRP supertrees) 184 147 (7 final) scaffold is a supertree of 6 taxa
Angiosperms [45] wMRP 379 46 323 (85.2%), 224 (59.1%)
Marsupialia [46] MRP (source trees with identical taxon sets were combined using supertree methods) 267 158 267 (100%) (taxonomy)
Cetartiodactyla [47] MRP 290 201 290 (100%) (taxonomy)
Eutheria [48] MRP (some source trees were MRP supertrees) 113 725 (109 supertrees) 115 (100%)
Carcharhiniformes: Sphyrnidae [49] MRP (non-weighted, weighted, purvis, and irreversible) 8 5 8 (100%)
Mammalia [50] MRP (combined previously published supertrees and some of their own.) 4510 >2500 (31 supertrees) not given
  1. Selected empirical supertree studies. For each supertree study we give the supertree method(s) used, the number of taxa in the final supertree, the number of source trees, and the number of taxa in the scaffold dataset. If we could not determine which source trees served as scaffold trees, we instead give the number of taxa in the largest source tree. * Indicates the number of publications from which source trees were drawn, not the actual number of source trees.