Skip to main content
Log in

Assessing Congruence Among Ultrametric Distance Matrices

  • Published:
Journal of Classification Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Recently, a test of congruence among distance matrices (CADM) has been developed. The null hypothesis is the incongruence among all data matrices. It has been shown that CADM has a correct type I error rate and good power when applied to independently-generated distance matrices. In this study, we investigate the suitability of CADM to compare ultrametric distance matrices. We tested the type I error rate and power of CADM with randomly generated dendrograms and their associated ultrametric distance matrices. We show that the test has correct type I error rates and good power. To obtain the significance level of the statistic, a single (as in the Mantel test) or a double (as in the double permutation test, DPT) permutation procedure was used. The power of CADM remained identical when the two permutation methods were compared. This study clearly demonstrates that CADM can be used to determine whether different dendrograms convey congruent information.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Colless, D.H. (1980), “Congruence between Morphometric and Allozyme Data for Menidia Species — A Reappraisal,” Systematic Zoology, 29, 289–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edgington, E.S. (1995), Randomization Tests (3rd ed.), New York: Marcel Dekker.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Estabrook, G.F., Mcmorris, F.R., and Meacham, C.A. (1985), “Comparison of Undirected Phylogenetic Trees Based on Subtrees of Four Evolutionary Units,” Systematic Zoology, 34, 193–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faith, D.P. (1991), “Cladistic Permutation Tests for Monophyly and Nonmonophyly,” Systematic Zoology, 40, 366–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farris, J.S., Källersjö, M., Kluge, A.G., and Bult, C. (1994), “Testing Significance of Incongruence,” Cladistics, 10, 315–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holm, S. (1979), “A Simple Sequentially Rejective Multiple Test Procedure,” Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 6, 65–70.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Lapointe, F.J., and Legendre, P. (1990), “A Statistical Framework to Test the Consensus of Two Nested Classifications,” Systematic Zoology, 39, 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lapointe, F.J., and Legendre, P. (1991), “The Generation of Random Ultrametric Matrices Representing Dendrograms,” Journal of Classification, 8, 177–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lapointe, F.J., and Legendre, P. (1994), “A Classification of Pure Malt Scotch Whiskies,” Applied Statistics, 43, 237–257.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Lapointe, F.J., and Legendre, P. (1995), “Comparison Tests for Dendrograms: A Comparative Evaluation,” Journal of Classification, 12, 265–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Legendre, P., and Lapointe, F.J. (2004), “Assessing Congruence among Distance Matrices: Single-Malt Scotch Whiskies Revisited,” Australian and New Zealand Journal of Statistics, 46, 615–629.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Mantel, N. (1967), “The Detection of Disease Clustering and a Generalized Regression Approach,” Cancer Research, 27, 209–220.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mickevich, M.F., and Farris, J.S. (1981), “The Implications of Congruence in Menidia,” Systematic Zoology, 30, 351–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Page, R.D.M. (1996), “On Consensus, Confidence, and Total Evidence,” Cladistics, 12, 83–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Penny, D., Watson, E.E., and Steel, M.A. (1993), “Trees from Languages and Genes Are Very Similar,” Systematic Biology, 42, 382–384.

    Google Scholar 

  • Planet, P.J. (2006), “Tree Disagreement: Measuring and Testing Incongruence in Phylogenies,” Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 39, 86–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podani, J. (2000), “Simulation of Random Dendrograms and Comparison Tests: Some Comments,” Journal of Classification, 17, 123–142.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, D.F., and Foulds, L.R. (1981), “Comparison of Phylogenetic Trees,” Mathematical Biosciences, 53, 131–147.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Rohlf, F.J. (1982), “Consensus Indices for Comparing Classifications,” Mathematical Biosciences, 59, 131–144.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Sokal, R.R., and Rohlf, F.J. (1962), “The Comparison of Dendrograms by Objective Methods,” Taxon, 11, 33–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steel, M.A., and Penny, D. (1993), “Distributions of Tree Comparison Metrics — Some New Results,” Systematic Biology, 42, 126–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Templeton, A.R. (1983), “Phylogenetic Inference from Restriction Endonuclease Cleavage Site Maps with Particular Reference to the Evolution of Human and the Apes,” International Journal of Organic Evolution, 37, 221–244.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Véronique Campbell.

Additional information

We would like to thank the members of the LEMEE (Laboratoire d’Écologie Moléculaire et d’Évolution) of Université de Montréal for their constructive comments on a preliminary version of this manuscript as well as three anonymous reviewers. This study was supported by NSERC and FQRNT scholarships to VC and by NSERC grants OGP0007738 to PL and OGP0155251 to FJL.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Campbell, V., Legendre, P. & Lapointe, FJ. Assessing Congruence Among Ultrametric Distance Matrices. J Classif 26, 103–117 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00357-009-9028-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00357-009-9028-x

Keywords

Navigation