| 1 | <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2 Final//EN"> |
|---|
| 2 | <HTML> |
|---|
| 3 | <HEAD> |
|---|
| 4 | <TITLE>penny</TITLE> |
|---|
| 5 | <META NAME="description" CONTENT="penny"> |
|---|
| 6 | <META NAME="keywords" CONTENT="penny"> |
|---|
| 7 | <META NAME="resource-type" CONTENT="document"> |
|---|
| 8 | <META NAME="distribution" CONTENT="global"> |
|---|
| 9 | <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> |
|---|
| 10 | </HEAD> |
|---|
| 11 | <BODY BGCOLOR="#ccffff"> |
|---|
| 12 | <DIV ALIGN=RIGHT> |
|---|
| 13 | version 3.6 |
|---|
| 14 | </DIV> |
|---|
| 15 | <P> |
|---|
| 16 | <DIV ALIGN=CENTER> |
|---|
| 17 | <H1>PENNY - Branch and bound to find<BR>all most parsimonious trees</H1> |
|---|
| 18 | </DIV> |
|---|
| 19 | <P> |
|---|
| 20 | © Copyright 1986-2002 by the University of |
|---|
| 21 | Washington. Written by Joseph Felsenstein. Permission is granted to copy |
|---|
| 22 | this document provided that no fee is charged for it and that this copyright |
|---|
| 23 | notice is not removed. |
|---|
| 24 | <P> |
|---|
| 25 | PENNY is a program that will find all of the most parsimonious trees |
|---|
| 26 | implied by your data. It does so not by examining all possible trees, |
|---|
| 27 | but by using the more sophisticated "branch and bound" algorithm, a |
|---|
| 28 | standard computer science search strategy first applied to |
|---|
| 29 | phylogenetic inference by Hendy and Penny (1982). (J. S. Farris |
|---|
| 30 | [personal communication, 1975] had also suggested that this strategy, |
|---|
| 31 | which is well-known in computer science, might |
|---|
| 32 | be applied to phylogenies, but he did not publish this suggestion). |
|---|
| 33 | <P> |
|---|
| 34 | There is, however, a price to be paid for the certainty that one has |
|---|
| 35 | found all members of the set of most parsimonious trees. The problem of |
|---|
| 36 | finding these has been shown (Graham and Foulds, 1982; Day, 1983) to be |
|---|
| 37 | NP-complete, which is equivalent to saying that there is no |
|---|
| 38 | fast algorithm that is guaranteed to solve the problem in all cases |
|---|
| 39 | (for a discussion of NP-completeness, see the Scientific American |
|---|
| 40 | article by Lewis and Papadimitriou, 1978). The result is that this |
|---|
| 41 | program, despite its algorithmic sophistication, is VERY SLOW. |
|---|
| 42 | <P> |
|---|
| 43 | The program should be slower than the other tree-building programs |
|---|
| 44 | in the package, but useable up to about ten species. Above this it will |
|---|
| 45 | bog down rapidly, but exactly when depends on the data and on how much |
|---|
| 46 | computer time you have (it may be more effective in the hands of someone |
|---|
| 47 | who can let a microcomputer grind all night than for someone who |
|---|
| 48 | has the "benefit" of paying for time on the campus mainframe computer). IT |
|---|
| 49 | IS VERY IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO GET A FEEL FOR HOW LONG THE PROGRAM |
|---|
| 50 | WILL TAKE ON YOUR DATA. This can be done by running it on subsets |
|---|
| 51 | of the species, increasing the number of species in the run until you |
|---|
| 52 | either are able to treat the full data set or know that the program |
|---|
| 53 | will take unacceptably long on it. (Making a plot of the logarithm of run |
|---|
| 54 | time against species number may help to project run times). |
|---|
| 55 | <P> |
|---|
| 56 | <H2>The Algorithm</H2> |
|---|
| 57 | <P> |
|---|
| 58 | The search strategy used by PENNY starts by making a tree consisting of the |
|---|
| 59 | first two species (the first three if the tree is to be unrooted). Then |
|---|
| 60 | it tries to add the next species in all possible places (there are three |
|---|
| 61 | of these). For each of the resulting trees it evaluates the number of |
|---|
| 62 | steps. It adds the next species to each of these, again in all |
|---|
| 63 | possible spaces. If this process would continue it would simply |
|---|
| 64 | generate all possible trees, of which there are a very large number even |
|---|
| 65 | when the number of species is moderate (34,459,425 with 10 species). Actually |
|---|
| 66 | it does not do this, because the trees are generated in a |
|---|
| 67 | particular order and some of them are never generated. |
|---|
| 68 | <P> |
|---|
| 69 | Actually the order in which trees are generated is not quite as |
|---|
| 70 | implied above, but is a "depth-first search". This |
|---|
| 71 | means that first one adds the third species in the first possible |
|---|
| 72 | place, then the fourth species in its first possible place, then |
|---|
| 73 | the fifth and so on until the first possible tree has been produced. Its |
|---|
| 74 | number of steps is evaluated. Then one "backtracks" by trying the |
|---|
| 75 | alternative placements of the last species. When these are exhausted |
|---|
| 76 | one tries the next placement of the next-to-last species. The |
|---|
| 77 | order of placement in a depth-first search is like this for a |
|---|
| 78 | four-species case (parentheses enclose monophyletic groups): |
|---|
| 79 | <P> |
|---|
| 80 | Make tree of first two species (A,B)<BR> |
|---|
| 81 |   Add C in first place ((A,B),C)<BR> |
|---|
| 82 |     Add D in first place (((A,D),B),C)<BR> |
|---|
| 83 |     Add D in second place ((A,(B,D)),C)<BR> |
|---|
| 84 |     Add D in third place (((A,B),D),C)<BR> |
|---|
| 85 |     Add D in fourth place ((A,B),(C,D))<BR> |
|---|
| 86 |     Add D in fifth place (((A,B),C),D)<BR> |
|---|
| 87 |   Add C in second place: ((A,C),B)<BR> |
|---|
| 88 |     Add D in first place (((A,D),C),B)<BR> |
|---|
| 89 |     Add D in second place ((A,(C,D)),B)<BR> |
|---|
| 90 |     Add D in third place (((A,C),D),B)<BR> |
|---|
| 91 |     Add D in fourth place ((A,C),(B,D))<BR> |
|---|
| 92 |     Add D in fifth place (((A,C),B),D)<BR> |
|---|
| 93 |   Add C in third place (A,(B,C))<BR> |
|---|
| 94 |     Add D in first place ((A,D),(B,C))<BR> |
|---|
| 95 |     Add D in second place (A,((B,D),C))<BR> |
|---|
| 96 |     Add D in third place (A,(B,(C,D)))<BR> |
|---|
| 97 |     Add D in fourth place (A,((B,C),D))<BR> |
|---|
| 98 |     Add D in fifth place ((A,(B,C)),D)<BR> |
|---|
| 99 | <P> |
|---|
| 100 | Among these fifteen trees you will find all of the four-species |
|---|
| 101 | rooted bifurcating trees, each exactly once (the parentheses each enclose |
|---|
| 102 | a monophyletic group). As displayed above, the backtracking |
|---|
| 103 | depth-first search algorithm is just another way of producing all |
|---|
| 104 | possible trees one at a time. The branch and bound algorithm |
|---|
| 105 | consists of this with one change. As each tree is constructed, |
|---|
| 106 | including the partial trees such as (A,(B,C)), its number of steps |
|---|
| 107 | is evaluated. In addition a prediction is made as to how many |
|---|
| 108 | steps will be added, at a minimum, as further species are added. |
|---|
| 109 | <P> |
|---|
| 110 | This is done by counting how many binary characters which are invariant in the |
|---|
| 111 | data up the species most recently added will ultimately show variation when |
|---|
| 112 | further species |
|---|
| 113 | are added. Thus if 20 characters vary among species A, B, and C and their |
|---|
| 114 | root, and if tree ((A,C),B) requires 24 steps, then if there are 8 more |
|---|
| 115 | characters which will be seen to vary when species D is added, we can |
|---|
| 116 | immediately say that no matter how we add D, the resulting tree can have no less |
|---|
| 117 | than 24 + 8 = 32 steps. The point of all this is that if a previously-found |
|---|
| 118 | tree such as ((A,B),(C,D)) required only 30 steps, then we know that |
|---|
| 119 | there is no point in even trying to add D to ((A,C),B). We have |
|---|
| 120 | computed the bound that enables us to cut off a whole line of inquiry |
|---|
| 121 | (in this case five trees) and avoid going down that particular branch |
|---|
| 122 | any farther. |
|---|
| 123 | <P> |
|---|
| 124 | The branch-and-bound algorithm thus allows us to find all most parsimonious |
|---|
| 125 | trees without generating all possible trees. How much of a saving this |
|---|
| 126 | is depends strongly on the data. For very clean (nearly "Hennigian") |
|---|
| 127 | data, it saves much time, but on very messy data it will still take |
|---|
| 128 | a very long time. |
|---|
| 129 | <P> |
|---|
| 130 | The algorithm in the program differs from the one outlined here |
|---|
| 131 | in some essential details: it investigates possibilities in the |
|---|
| 132 | order of their apparent promise. This applies to the order of addition |
|---|
| 133 | of species, and to the places where they are added to the tree. After |
|---|
| 134 | the first two-species tree is constructed, the program tries adding |
|---|
| 135 | each of the remaining species in turn, each in the best possible place it |
|---|
| 136 | can find. Whichever of those species adds (at a minimum) the most |
|---|
| 137 | additional steps is taken to be the one to be added next to the tree. When |
|---|
| 138 | it is added, it is added in turn to places which cause the fewest |
|---|
| 139 | additional steps to be added. This sounds a bit complex, but it is done |
|---|
| 140 | with the intention of eliminating regions of the search of all possible |
|---|
| 141 | trees as soon as possible, and lowering the bound on tree length as quickly |
|---|
| 142 | as possible. |
|---|
| 143 | <P> |
|---|
| 144 | The program keeps a list of all the most parsimonious |
|---|
| 145 | trees found so far. Whenever |
|---|
| 146 | it finds one that has fewer steps than |
|---|
| 147 | these, it clears out the list and |
|---|
| 148 | restarts the list with that tree. In the process the bound tightens and |
|---|
| 149 | fewer possibilities need be investigated. At the end the list contains |
|---|
| 150 | all the shortest trees. These are then printed out. It should be |
|---|
| 151 | mentioned that the program CLIQUE for finding all largest cliques |
|---|
| 152 | also works by branch-and-bound. Both problems are NP-complete but for |
|---|
| 153 | some reason CLIQUE runs far faster. Although their worst-case behavior |
|---|
| 154 | is bad for both programs, those worst cases occur far more frequently |
|---|
| 155 | in parsimony problems than in compatibility problems. |
|---|
| 156 | <P> |
|---|
| 157 | <H2>Controlling Run Times</H2> |
|---|
| 158 | <P> |
|---|
| 159 | Among the quantities available to be set at the |
|---|
| 160 | beginning of a run of PENNY, two (howoften and howmany) are of particular |
|---|
| 161 | importance. As PENNY goes along it will keep count of how many |
|---|
| 162 | trees it has examined. Suppose that howoften is 100 and howmany is 1000, |
|---|
| 163 | the default settings. Every time 100 trees have been examined, PENNY |
|---|
| 164 | will print out a line saying how many multiples of 100 trees have now been |
|---|
| 165 | examined, how many steps the most parsimonious tree found so far has, |
|---|
| 166 | how many trees of with that number of steps have been found, and a very |
|---|
| 167 | rough estimate of what fraction of all trees have been looked at so far. |
|---|
| 168 | <P> |
|---|
| 169 | When the number of these multiples printed out reaches the number howmany |
|---|
| 170 | (say 1000), the whole algorithm aborts and prints out that it has not |
|---|
| 171 | found all most parsimonious trees, but prints out what is has got so far |
|---|
| 172 | anyway. These trees need not be any of the most parsimonious trees: they are |
|---|
| 173 | simply the most parsimonious ones found so far. By setting the product |
|---|
| 174 | (howoften times howmany) large you can make |
|---|
| 175 | the algorithm less likely to abort, but then you risk getting bogged |
|---|
| 176 | down in a gigantic computation. You should adjust these constants so that |
|---|
| 177 | the program cannot go beyond examining the number of trees you are reasonably |
|---|
| 178 | willing to wait for. In their initial setting the program will |
|---|
| 179 | abort after looking at 100,000 trees. Obviously you may want to adjust |
|---|
| 180 | howoften in order to get more or fewer lines of intermediate notice of how |
|---|
| 181 | many trees have been looked at so far. Of course, in small cases you may |
|---|
| 182 | never even reach the first multiple of howoften and nothing will be printed out |
|---|
| 183 | except some headings and then the final trees. |
|---|
| 184 | <P> |
|---|
| 185 | The indication of the approximate percentage of trees searched so far will |
|---|
| 186 | be helpful in judging how much farther you would have to go to get the full |
|---|
| 187 | search. Actually, since that fraction is the fraction of the set of all |
|---|
| 188 | possible trees searched or ruled out so far, and since the search becomes |
|---|
| 189 | progressively more efficient, the approximate fraction printed out will |
|---|
| 190 | usually be an underestimate of how far along the program is, sometimes a |
|---|
| 191 | serious underestimate. |
|---|
| 192 | <P> |
|---|
| 193 | A constant that affects the result is |
|---|
| 194 | "maxtrees", which controls the |
|---|
| 195 | maximum number of trees that can be stored. Thus if |
|---|
| 196 | "maxtrees" is 25, and 32 most parsimonious trees are found, |
|---|
| 197 | only the first 25 of these are stored and printed out. If "maxtrees" |
|---|
| 198 | is increased, the program does not run any slower but requires a little |
|---|
| 199 | more intermediate storage space. I recommend that |
|---|
| 200 | "maxtrees" be kept as large as you can, provided you are willing to |
|---|
| 201 | look at an output with that many trees on it! Initially, |
|---|
| 202 | "maxtrees" is set to 100 in the distribution copy. |
|---|
| 203 | <P> |
|---|
| 204 | <H2>Methods and Options</H2> |
|---|
| 205 | <P> |
|---|
| 206 | The counting of the length of trees is done by an algorithm nearly |
|---|
| 207 | identical to the corresponding algorithms in MIX, and thus the remainder |
|---|
| 208 | of this document will be nearly identical to the MIX document. MIX |
|---|
| 209 | is a general parsimony program which carries out the Wagner and |
|---|
| 210 | Camin-Sokal parsimony methods in mixture, where each character can have |
|---|
| 211 | its method specified. The program defaults to carrying out Wagner |
|---|
| 212 | parsimony. |
|---|
| 213 | <P> |
|---|
| 214 | The Camin-Sokal parsimony method explains the data by assuming that |
|---|
| 215 | changes 0 --> 1 are allowed but not changes 1 --> 0. Wagner parsimony |
|---|
| 216 | allows both kinds of changes. (This under the assumption that 0 is the |
|---|
| 217 | ancestral state, though the program allows reassignment of the ancestral |
|---|
| 218 | state, in which case we must reverse the state numbers 0 and 1 |
|---|
| 219 | throughout this discussion). The criterion is to find the tree which |
|---|
| 220 | requires the minimum number of changes. The Camin-Sokal method is due |
|---|
| 221 | to Camin and Sokal (1965) and the Wagner method to Eck and Dayhoff |
|---|
| 222 | (1966) and to Kluge and Farris (1969). |
|---|
| 223 | <P> |
|---|
| 224 | Here are the assumptions of these two methods: |
|---|
| 225 | <P> |
|---|
| 226 | <OL> |
|---|
| 227 | <LI>Ancestral states are known (Camin-Sokal) or unknown (Wagner). |
|---|
| 228 | <LI>Different characters evolve independently. |
|---|
| 229 | <LI>Different lineages evolve independently. |
|---|
| 230 | <LI>Changes 0 --> 1 are much more probable than changes 1 --> 0 |
|---|
| 231 | (Camin-Sokal) or equally probable (Wagner). |
|---|
| 232 | <LI>Both of these kinds of changes are a priori improbable over the |
|---|
| 233 | evolutionary time spans involved in the differentiation of the |
|---|
| 234 | group in question. |
|---|
| 235 | <LI>Other kinds of evolutionary event such as retention of polymorphism |
|---|
| 236 | are far less probable than 0 --> 1 changes. |
|---|
| 237 | <LI>Rates of evolution in different lineages are sufficiently low that |
|---|
| 238 | two changes in a long segment of the tree are far less probable |
|---|
| 239 | than one change in a short segment. |
|---|
| 240 | </OL> |
|---|
| 241 | <P> |
|---|
| 242 | That these are the assumptions of parsimony methods has been documented |
|---|
| 243 | in a series of papers of mine: (1973a, 1978b, 1979, 1981b, |
|---|
| 244 | 1983b, 1988b). For an opposing view arguing that the parsimony methods |
|---|
| 245 | make no substantive |
|---|
| 246 | assumptions such as these, see the papers by Farris (1983) and Sober (1983a, |
|---|
| 247 | 1983b), but also read the exchange between Felsenstein and Sober (1986). |
|---|
| 248 | <P> |
|---|
| 249 | The input for PENNY is the standard input for discrete characters |
|---|
| 250 | programs, described above in the documentation file for the |
|---|
| 251 | discrete-characters programs. States "?", "P", and "B" are allowed. |
|---|
| 252 | <P> |
|---|
| 253 | Most of the options are selected using a menu: |
|---|
| 254 | <P> |
|---|
| 255 | <TABLE><TR><TD BGCOLOR=white> |
|---|
| 256 | <PRE> |
|---|
| 257 | |
|---|
| 258 | Penny algorithm, version 3.6a3 |
|---|
| 259 | branch-and-bound to find all most parsimonious trees |
|---|
| 260 | |
|---|
| 261 | Settings for this run: |
|---|
| 262 | X Use Mixed method? No |
|---|
| 263 | P Parsimony method? Wagner |
|---|
| 264 | F How often to report, in trees: 100 |
|---|
| 265 | H How many groups of 100 trees: 1000 |
|---|
| 266 | O Outgroup root? No, use as outgroup species 1 |
|---|
| 267 | S Branch and bound is simple? Yes |
|---|
| 268 | T Use Threshold parsimony? No, use ordinary parsimony |
|---|
| 269 | A Use ancestral states in input file? No |
|---|
| 270 | W Sites weighted? No |
|---|
| 271 | M Analyze multiple data sets? No |
|---|
| 272 | 0 Terminal type (IBM PC, ANSI, none)? (none) |
|---|
| 273 | 1 Print out the data at start of run No |
|---|
| 274 | 2 Print indications of progress of run Yes |
|---|
| 275 | 3 Print out tree Yes |
|---|
| 276 | 4 Print out steps in each character No |
|---|
| 277 | 5 Print states at all nodes of tree No |
|---|
| 278 | 6 Write out trees onto tree file? Yes |
|---|
| 279 | |
|---|
| 280 | Are these settings correct? (type Y or the letter for one to change) |
|---|
| 281 | </PRE> |
|---|
| 282 | </TD></TR></TABLE> |
|---|
| 283 | <P> |
|---|
| 284 | The options X, O, T, A, and M are the usual Mixed Methods, Outgroup, |
|---|
| 285 | Threshold, Ancestral |
|---|
| 286 | States, and Multiple Data Sets options. They are described in the Main |
|---|
| 287 | documentation file and in the Discrete Characters Programs documentation |
|---|
| 288 | file. The O option is only acted upon if the final tree is unrooted. |
|---|
| 289 | <P> |
|---|
| 290 | The option P toggles between the Camin-Sokal parsimony criterion |
|---|
| 291 | and the Wagner parsimony criterion. Options F and H reset the |
|---|
| 292 | variables howoften (F) and howmany (H). The user is prompted for the new |
|---|
| 293 | values. By setting these larger the program will report its progress less |
|---|
| 294 | often (howoften) and will run longer (howmany times howoften). These values |
|---|
| 295 | default to 100 and 1000 which |
|---|
| 296 | guarantees a search of 100,000 trees, but these can be changed. Note that |
|---|
| 297 | option F in this program is not the Factors option available in some of |
|---|
| 298 | the other programs in this section of the package. |
|---|
| 299 | <P> |
|---|
| 300 | The A (Ancestral states) option works in the usual way, described in the |
|---|
| 301 | Discrete Characters Programs documentation file. If |
|---|
| 302 | the A option is not used, then the program will assume 0 as the |
|---|
| 303 | ancestral state for those characters following the Camin-Sokal method, |
|---|
| 304 | and will assume that the ancestral state is unknown for those characters |
|---|
| 305 | following Wagner parsimony. If any characters have unknown ancestral |
|---|
| 306 | states, and if the resulting tree is rooted (even by outgroup), |
|---|
| 307 | a table will be printed out |
|---|
| 308 | showing the best guesses of which are the ancestral states in each |
|---|
| 309 | character. |
|---|
| 310 | <P> |
|---|
| 311 | The S (Simple) option alters a step in PENNY which reconsiders the |
|---|
| 312 | order in which species are added to the tree. Normally the decision as to |
|---|
| 313 | what species to add to the tree next is made as the first tree is being |
|---|
| 314 | constructed; that ordering of species is not altered subsequently. The |
|---|
| 315 | S option causes it to be continually reconsidered. This will probably |
|---|
| 316 | result in a substantial increase in run time, but on some data sets of |
|---|
| 317 | intermediate messiness it may help. It is included in case it might prove |
|---|
| 318 | of use on some data sets. |
|---|
| 319 | <P> |
|---|
| 320 | The F (Factors) |
|---|
| 321 | option is not available in this program, as it would have no effect on |
|---|
| 322 | the result even if that information were provided in the input file. |
|---|
| 323 | <P> |
|---|
| 324 | The final output is standard: a set of trees, which |
|---|
| 325 | will be printed as rooted or unrooted |
|---|
| 326 | depending on which is appropriate, and if the user elects to see them, |
|---|
| 327 | tables of the number of changes |
|---|
| 328 | of state required in each character. If the Wagner option is in force for a |
|---|
| 329 | character, it may not be possible to unambiguously locate the places on |
|---|
| 330 | the tree where the changes occur, as there may be multiple possibilities. A |
|---|
| 331 | table is available to be printed out after each tree, showing for each branch |
|---|
| 332 | whether |
|---|
| 333 | there are known to be changes in the branch, and what the states are inferred |
|---|
| 334 | to have been at the top end of the branch. If the inferred state is a "?" |
|---|
| 335 | there will be multiple equally-parsimonious assignments of states; the user |
|---|
| 336 | must work these out for themselves by hand. |
|---|
| 337 | <P> |
|---|
| 338 | If the Camin-Sokal parsimony method (option C or S) |
|---|
| 339 | is invoked and the A option is also used, then the program will |
|---|
| 340 | infer, for any character whose ancestral state is unknown ("?") whether the |
|---|
| 341 | ancestral state 0 or 1 will give the fewest state changes. If these are |
|---|
| 342 | tied, then it may not be possible for the program to infer the |
|---|
| 343 | state in the internal nodes, and these will all be printed as ".". If this |
|---|
| 344 | has happened and you want to know more about the states at the internal |
|---|
| 345 | nodes, you will find helpful to use MOVE to display the tree and examine |
|---|
| 346 | its interior states, as the algorithm in MOVE shows all that can be known |
|---|
| 347 | in this case about the interior states, including where there is and is not |
|---|
| 348 | amibiguity. The algorithm in PENNY gives up more easily on displaying these |
|---|
| 349 | states. |
|---|
| 350 | <P> |
|---|
| 351 | If the A option is not used, then the program will assume 0 as the |
|---|
| 352 | ancestral state for those characters following the Camin-Sokal method, |
|---|
| 353 | and will assume that the ancestral state is unknown for those characters |
|---|
| 354 | following Wagner parsimony. If any characters have unknown ancestral |
|---|
| 355 | states, and if the resulting tree is rooted (even by outgroup), |
|---|
| 356 | a table will be printed out |
|---|
| 357 | showing the best guesses of which are the ancestral states in each |
|---|
| 358 | character. You will find it useful to understand the difference between |
|---|
| 359 | the Camin-Sokal parsimony criterion with unknown ancestral state and the Wagner |
|---|
| 360 | parsimony criterion. |
|---|
| 361 | <P> |
|---|
| 362 | At the beginning of the program are a series of constants, |
|---|
| 363 | which can be changed to help adapt the program to different computer systems. |
|---|
| 364 | Two are the initial values of howmany and howoften, |
|---|
| 365 | constants "often" and "many". Constant "maxtrees" |
|---|
| 366 | is the maximum number of tied trees that will be stored. |
|---|
| 367 | <P> |
|---|
| 368 | <HR> |
|---|
| 369 | <P> |
|---|
| 370 | <H3>TEST DATA SET</H3> |
|---|
| 371 | <P> |
|---|
| 372 | <TABLE><TR><TD BGCOLOR=white> |
|---|
| 373 | <PRE> |
|---|
| 374 | 7 6 |
|---|
| 375 | Alpha1 110110 |
|---|
| 376 | Alpha2 110110 |
|---|
| 377 | Beta1 110000 |
|---|
| 378 | Beta2 110000 |
|---|
| 379 | Gamma1 100110 |
|---|
| 380 | Delta 001001 |
|---|
| 381 | Epsilon 001110 |
|---|
| 382 | </PRE> |
|---|
| 383 | </TD></TR></TABLE> |
|---|
| 384 | <P> |
|---|
| 385 | <HR> |
|---|
| 386 | <P> |
|---|
| 387 | <H3>TEST SET OUTPUT (with all numerical options turned on)</H3> |
|---|
| 388 | <P> |
|---|
| 389 | <TABLE><TR><TD BGCOLOR=white> |
|---|
| 390 | <PRE> |
|---|
| 391 | |
|---|
| 392 | Penny algorithm, version 3.6a3 |
|---|
| 393 | branch-and-bound to find all most parsimonious trees |
|---|
| 394 | |
|---|
| 395 | 7 species, 6 characters |
|---|
| 396 | Wagner parsimony method |
|---|
| 397 | |
|---|
| 398 | |
|---|
| 399 | Name Characters |
|---|
| 400 | ---- ---------- |
|---|
| 401 | |
|---|
| 402 | Alpha1 11011 0 |
|---|
| 403 | Alpha2 11011 0 |
|---|
| 404 | Beta1 11000 0 |
|---|
| 405 | Beta2 11000 0 |
|---|
| 406 | Gamma1 10011 0 |
|---|
| 407 | Delta 00100 1 |
|---|
| 408 | Epsilon 00111 0 |
|---|
| 409 | |
|---|
| 410 | |
|---|
| 411 | |
|---|
| 412 | requires a total of 8.000 |
|---|
| 413 | |
|---|
| 414 | 3 trees in all found |
|---|
| 415 | |
|---|
| 416 | |
|---|
| 417 | |
|---|
| 418 | |
|---|
| 419 | +-----------------Alpha1 |
|---|
| 420 | ! |
|---|
| 421 | ! +--------Alpha2 |
|---|
| 422 | --1 ! |
|---|
| 423 | ! +-----4 +--Epsilon |
|---|
| 424 | ! ! ! +--6 |
|---|
| 425 | ! ! +--5 +--Delta |
|---|
| 426 | +--2 ! |
|---|
| 427 | ! +-----Gamma1 |
|---|
| 428 | ! |
|---|
| 429 | ! +--Beta2 |
|---|
| 430 | +-----------3 |
|---|
| 431 | +--Beta1 |
|---|
| 432 | |
|---|
| 433 | remember: this is an unrooted tree! |
|---|
| 434 | |
|---|
| 435 | |
|---|
| 436 | steps in each character: |
|---|
| 437 | 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 |
|---|
| 438 | *----------------------------------------- |
|---|
| 439 | 0! 1 1 1 2 2 1 |
|---|
| 440 | |
|---|
| 441 | From To Any Steps? State at upper node |
|---|
| 442 | ( . means same as in the node below it on tree) |
|---|
| 443 | |
|---|
| 444 | 1 11011 0 |
|---|
| 445 | 1 Alpha1 no ..... . |
|---|
| 446 | 1 2 no ..... . |
|---|
| 447 | 2 4 no ..... . |
|---|
| 448 | 4 Alpha2 no ..... . |
|---|
| 449 | 4 5 yes .0... . |
|---|
| 450 | 5 6 yes 0.1.. . |
|---|
| 451 | 6 Epsilon no ..... . |
|---|
| 452 | 6 Delta yes ...00 1 |
|---|
| 453 | 5 Gamma1 no ..... . |
|---|
| 454 | 2 3 yes ...00 . |
|---|
| 455 | 3 Beta2 no ..... . |
|---|
| 456 | 3 Beta1 no ..... . |
|---|
| 457 | |
|---|
| 458 | |
|---|
| 459 | |
|---|
| 460 | |
|---|
| 461 | +-----------------Alpha1 |
|---|
| 462 | ! |
|---|
| 463 | --1 +--------------Alpha2 |
|---|
| 464 | ! ! |
|---|
| 465 | ! ! +--Epsilon |
|---|
| 466 | +--2 +--6 |
|---|
| 467 | ! +-----5 +--Delta |
|---|
| 468 | ! ! ! |
|---|
| 469 | +--4 +-----Gamma1 |
|---|
| 470 | ! |
|---|
| 471 | ! +--Beta2 |
|---|
| 472 | +--------3 |
|---|
| 473 | +--Beta1 |
|---|
| 474 | |
|---|
| 475 | remember: this is an unrooted tree! |
|---|
| 476 | |
|---|
| 477 | |
|---|
| 478 | steps in each character: |
|---|
| 479 | 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 |
|---|
| 480 | *----------------------------------------- |
|---|
| 481 | 0! 1 1 1 2 2 1 |
|---|
| 482 | |
|---|
| 483 | From To Any Steps? State at upper node |
|---|
| 484 | ( . means same as in the node below it on tree) |
|---|
| 485 | |
|---|
| 486 | 1 11011 0 |
|---|
| 487 | 1 Alpha1 no ..... . |
|---|
| 488 | 1 2 no ..... . |
|---|
| 489 | 2 Alpha2 no ..... . |
|---|
| 490 | 2 4 no ..... . |
|---|
| 491 | 4 5 yes .0... . |
|---|
| 492 | 5 6 yes 0.1.. . |
|---|
| 493 | 6 Epsilon no ..... . |
|---|
| 494 | 6 Delta yes ...00 1 |
|---|
| 495 | 5 Gamma1 no ..... . |
|---|
| 496 | 4 3 yes ...00 . |
|---|
| 497 | 3 Beta2 no ..... . |
|---|
| 498 | 3 Beta1 no ..... . |
|---|
| 499 | |
|---|
| 500 | |
|---|
| 501 | |
|---|
| 502 | |
|---|
| 503 | +-----------------Alpha1 |
|---|
| 504 | ! |
|---|
| 505 | ! +-----Alpha2 |
|---|
| 506 | --1 +--------2 |
|---|
| 507 | ! ! ! +--Beta2 |
|---|
| 508 | ! ! +--3 |
|---|
| 509 | +--4 +--Beta1 |
|---|
| 510 | ! |
|---|
| 511 | ! +--Epsilon |
|---|
| 512 | ! +--6 |
|---|
| 513 | +--------5 +--Delta |
|---|
| 514 | ! |
|---|
| 515 | +-----Gamma1 |
|---|
| 516 | |
|---|
| 517 | remember: this is an unrooted tree! |
|---|
| 518 | |
|---|
| 519 | |
|---|
| 520 | steps in each character: |
|---|
| 521 | 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 |
|---|
| 522 | *----------------------------------------- |
|---|
| 523 | 0! 1 1 1 2 2 1 |
|---|
| 524 | |
|---|
| 525 | From To Any Steps? State at upper node |
|---|
| 526 | ( . means same as in the node below it on tree) |
|---|
| 527 | |
|---|
| 528 | 1 11011 0 |
|---|
| 529 | 1 Alpha1 no ..... . |
|---|
| 530 | 1 4 no ..... . |
|---|
| 531 | 4 2 no ..... . |
|---|
| 532 | 2 Alpha2 no ..... . |
|---|
| 533 | 2 3 yes ...00 . |
|---|
| 534 | 3 Beta2 no ..... . |
|---|
| 535 | 3 Beta1 no ..... . |
|---|
| 536 | 4 5 yes .0... . |
|---|
| 537 | 5 6 yes 0.1.. . |
|---|
| 538 | 6 Epsilon no ..... . |
|---|
| 539 | 6 Delta yes ...00 1 |
|---|
| 540 | 5 Gamma1 no ..... . |
|---|
| 541 | |
|---|
| 542 | </PRE> |
|---|
| 543 | </TD></TR></TABLE> |
|---|
| 544 | </BODY> |
|---|
| 545 | </HTML> |
|---|