2016
DOI: 10.7717/peerj-cs.56
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

MonoPhy: a simple R package to find and visualize monophyly issues

Abstract: Background. The monophyly of taxa is an important attribute of a phylogenetic tree. A lack of it may hint at shortcomings of either the tree or the current taxonomy, or can indicate cases of incomplete lineage sorting or horizontal gene transfer. Whichever is the reason, a lack of monophyly can misguide subsequent analyses. While monophyly is conceptually simple, it is manually tedious and time consuming to assess on modern phylogenies of hundreds to thousands of species. Results. The R package MonoPhy allows … Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 32 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 24 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We inspected the initial Sanger phylogeny to identify any remaining rogues or names that needed updating in the taxonomic database. We checked for monophyly at taxonomic levels at or above genus using the MonoPhy R package v1.3 ( Schwery and O’Meara, 2016 ). We updated our taxonomic database if the molecular data clearly indicated the current usage of a synonym was incorrect (e.g., a taxonomic intruder into an otherwise expected monophyletic genus with a synonym available for that genus; expected monophyly follows Pteridophyte Phylogeny Group I, 2016 ).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We inspected the initial Sanger phylogeny to identify any remaining rogues or names that needed updating in the taxonomic database. We checked for monophyly at taxonomic levels at or above genus using the MonoPhy R package v1.3 ( Schwery and O’Meara, 2016 ). We updated our taxonomic database if the molecular data clearly indicated the current usage of a synonym was incorrect (e.g., a taxonomic intruder into an otherwise expected monophyletic genus with a synonym available for that genus; expected monophyly follows Pteridophyte Phylogeny Group I, 2016 ).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We applied phylocom's bladj() function (Webb, Ackerly, & Kembel, 2008) to the Raxml phylogeny based on 36 fossil calibration dates (Bell, Soltis, & Soltis, 2010;Gastauer & Meira-Neto, 2016). We used the R package monophy (Schwery & O'Meara, 2016) to test the monophyly of genera. For this analysis, we maintained supported nodes and collapsed unsupported nodes (bootstrap support <63) to polytomies (Farris, Albert, Kallersjo, Lipscomb, & Kluge, 1996).…”
Section: Estimation Of Community Phylogenymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We inspected the initial Sanger phylogeny to identify any remaining rogues or names that needed updating in the taxonomic database. We checked for monophyly at taxonomic levels at or above genus using the MonoPhy R package v1.3 (Schwery and O’Meara, 2016). We updated our taxonomic database if the molecular data clearly indicated the current usage of a synonym was incorrect ( e.g ., a taxonomic intruder into an otherwise expected monophyletic genus with a synonym available for that genus; expected monophyly follows PPG I, 2016).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%