Staff Publications

Staff Publications

  • external user (warningwarning)
  • Log in as
  • language uk
  • About

    'Staff publications' is the digital repository of Wageningen University & Research

    'Staff publications' contains references to publications authored by Wageningen University staff from 1976 onward.

    Publications authored by the staff of the Research Institutes are available from 1995 onwards.

    Full text documents are added when available. The database is updated daily and currently holds about 240,000 items, of which 72,000 in open access.

    We have a manual that explains all the features 

Record number 318239
Title A posteriori and a priori methodologies for testing hypotheses of causal processes in vicariance biogeography
Author(s) Veller, M.G.P. van; Kornet, D.J.; Zandee, M.
Source Cladistics-The International Journal of the Willi Hennig Society 18 (2002). - ISSN 0748-3007 - p. 207 - 217.
DOI https://doi.org/10.1006/clad.2001.0190
Department(s) Biosystematiek-Diertaxonomie
Publication type Refereed Article in a scientific journal
Publication year 2002
Abstract Methods used in vicariance biogeography fall into the categories of a posteriori methods (e.g., Component Compatibility Analysis and Brooks Parsimony Analysis) and a priori methods (e.g., Component Analysis, Reconciled Tree Analysis, and Three Area Statement Analysis). Each category corresponds to a particular methodology that arrives at general area cladograms by testing null hypotheses in a particular way. A posteriori methods assume the process of vicariance only (A0) as a common cause of the distribution of different monophyletic groups of taxa under the null hypothesis. Whenever a parsimony analysis of combined data from these monophyletic groups results in a general area cladogram with homoplasy, the null hypothesis is rejected and extinction and dispersal are invoked a posteriori as ad hoc process explanations. A priori methods assume not only vicariance (A0) but also combinations of vicariance with the processes of extinction (A1) and dispersal (A2) as possible causes of the distribution of the taxa of different monophyletic groups. Each assumed set of processes corresponds to a different null hypothesis. Under the assumption of independence and thus additivity of the processes involved, the sets of area cladograms obtained under A0, A1, and A2 from data of each monophyletic group must be inclusive (requirement I). Whenever no congruent area cladograms are found in the intersection of sets of area cladograms derived under the same assumption for different monophyletic groups (II), the corresponding null hypothesis is rejected.
Comments
There are no comments yet. You can post the first one!
Post a comment
 
Please log in to use this service. Login as Wageningen University & Research user or guest user in upper right hand corner of this page.