@article {29,
	title = {A new Coryphoid palm genus from Madagascar},
	journal = {Botanical Journal of the Linnean SocietyBotanical Journal of the Linnean Society},
	volume = {156},
	year = {2008},
	note = {[1][2][3][4][5]doi:10.1111/j.1095-8339.2007.00742.x},
	pages = {79-91},
	author = {Dransfield, John and Rakotoarinivo, Mijoro and Baker, William J. and Bayton, Ross P. and Fisher, Jack B. and Horn, James W. and Leroy, Bruno and Metz, Xavier}
}
@article {8,
	title = {Phylogenetic relationships among arecoid palms (Arecaceae: Arecoideae)},
	journal = {Annals of BotanyAnnals of Botany},
	volume = {108},
	number = {8},
	year = {2011},
	month = {February 16, 2011},
	pages = {1417-1432},
	abstract = {Background and Aims The Arecoideae is the largest and most diverse of the five subfamilies of palms (Arecaceae/Palmae), containing >50 \% of the species in the family. Despite its importance, phylogenetic relationships among Arecoideae are poorly understood. Here the most densely sampled phylogenetic analysis of Arecoideae available to date is presented. The results are used to test the current classification of the subfamily and to identify priority areas for future research.Methods DNA sequence data for the low-copy nuclear genes PRK and RPB2 were collected from 190 palm species, covering 103 (96 \%) genera of Arecoideae. The data were analysed using the parsimony ratchet, maximum likelihood, and both likelihood and parsimony bootstrapping.Key Results and Conclusions Despite the recovery of paralogues and pseudogenes in a small number of taxa, PRK and RPB2 were both highly informative, producing well-resolved phylogenetic trees with many nodes well supported by bootstrap analyses. Simultaneous analyses of the combined data sets provided additional resolution and support. Two areas of incongruence between PRK and RPB2 were strongly supported by the bootstrap relating to the placement of tribes Chamaedoreeae, Iriarteeae and Reinhardtieae; the causes of this incongruence remain uncertain. The current classification within Arecoideae was strongly supported by the present data. Of the 14 tribes and 14 sub-tribes in the classification, only five sub-tribes from tribe Areceae (Basseliniinae, Linospadicinae, Oncospermatinae, Rhopalostylidinae and Verschaffeltiinae) failed to receive support. Three major higher level clades were strongly supported: (1) the RRC clade (Roystoneeae, Reinhardtieae and Cocoseae), (2) the POS clade (Podococceae, Oranieae and Sclerospermeae) and (3) the core arecoid clade (Areceae, Euterpeae, Geonomateae, Leopoldinieae, Manicarieae and Pelagodoxeae). However, new data sources are required to elucidate ambiguities that remain in phylogenetic relationships among and within the major groups of Arecoideae, as well as within the Areceae, the largest tribe in the palm family.},
	author = {Baker, William J. and Norup, Maria V. and Clarkson, James J. and Couvreur, Thomas L. P. and Dowe, John L. and Lewis, Carl E. and Pintaud, Jean-Christophe and Savolainen, Vincent and Wilmot, Tomas and Chase, Mark W.}
}
@article {9,
	title = {Complete generic-level phylogenetic analyses of palms (Arecaceae) with comparisons of supertree and supermatrix approaches},
	journal = {Systematic BiologySystematic Biology},
	volume = {58},
	number = {2},
	year = {2009},
	month = {April 1, 2009},
	pages = {240-256},
	abstract = {Supertree and supermatrix methods have great potential in the quest to build the tree of life and yet they remain controversial, with most workers opting for one approach or the other, but rarely both. Here, we employed both methods to construct phylogenetic trees of all genera of palms (Arecaceae/Palmae), an iconic angiosperm family of great economic importance. We assembled a supermatrix consisting of 16 partitions, comprising DNA sequence data, plastid restriction fragment length polymorphism data, and morphological data for all genera, from which a highly resolved and well-supported phylogenetic tree was built despite abundant missing data. To construct supertrees, we used variants of matrix representation with parsimony (MRP) analysis based on input trees generated directly from subsamples of the supermatrix. All supertrees were highly resolved. Standard MRP with bootstrap-weighted matrix elements performed most effectively in this case, generating trees with the greatest congruence with the supermatrix tree and fewest clades unsupported by any input tree. Nonindependence due to input trees based on combinations of data partitions was an acceptable trade-off for improvements in supertree performance. Irreversible MRP and the use of strictly independent input trees only provided no obvious benefits. Contrary to previous claims, we found that unsupported clades are not infrequent under some MRP implementations, with up to 13\% of clades lacking support from any input tree in some irreversible MRP supertrees. To build a formal synthesis, we assessed the cross-corroboration between supermatrix trees and the variant supertrees using semistrict consensus, enumerating shared clades and compatible clades. The semistrict consensus of the supermatrix tree and the most congruent supertree contained 160 clades (of a maximum of 204), 137 of which were present in both trees. The relationships recovered by these trees strongly support the current phylogenetic classification of palms. We evaluate 2 composite supertree support measures (rQS and V) and conclude that it is more informative to report numbers of input trees that support or conflict with a given supertree clade. This study demonstrates that supertree and supermatrix methods can provide effective, explicit, and complimentary mechanisms for synthesizing disjointed phylogenetic evidence while emphasizing the need for further refinement of supertree methods.},
	author = {Baker, William J. and Savolainen, Vincent and Asmussen-Lange, Conny B. and Chase, Mark W. and Dransfield, John and Forest, Felix and Harley, Madeline M. and Uhl, Natalie W. and Wilkinson, Mark}
}
