f Why phylogenetic methods do not work very well in textual transmission

References

1. B. Aland, K. Aland, G. Mink, H. Strutwolf, K. Wachtel, Novum Testamentum Graecum. Editio critica maior, t. 4. Catholic Letters, 2^nd revised edition, Stuttgart, 2013.
   [Google Scholar]
2. B. Alexanderson, Problems in the New Testament : Old Manuscripts and Papyri, the New Genealogical Method (CBGM) and the Editio Critica Maior (ECM) (Acta Regiae Societatis Scientiarum et Litterarum Gothoburgensis, Humaniora 48), Göteborg, 2014.
   [Google Scholar]
3. A. Barbrook, C. Howe, N. Blake, P. Robinson, The Phylogeny of the Canterbury Tales, in Nature, 394 (27 August 1998), p. 839.
   [Google Scholar]
4. P. Baret, C. Macé, P. Robinson, Testing Methods on an Artificially Created Textual Tradition, in C. Macé, P. Baret, A. Bozzi, L. Cignoni (ed.), The Evolution of Texts : Confronting Stemmatological and Genetical Methods. Proceedings of the International Workshop held in Louvain-la-Neuve on September 1-2, 2004) (Linguistica computazionale, Fascicoli monografici), Pisa-Roma, 2006, p. 255–283.
   [Google Scholar]
5. J. Bédier, La tradition manuscrite du Lai de l’Ombre. Réflexions sur l’art d’éditer les anciens textes, Paris, 1929. From Romania, 54, 1928, p. 161–196 and p. 321–356.
   [Google Scholar]
6. N. Cartlidge, The Canterbury Tales and Cladistics, in Neuphilologische Mitteilungen, 102, 2001, p. 135–150.
   [Google Scholar]
7. C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, London, 1859.
   [Google Scholar]
8. C. De Hamel, Scribes and Illuminators, London, 1992.
   [Google Scholar]
9. I. De Vos, E. Gielen, C. Macé, P. Van Deun, L’art de compiler à Byzance : la lettre Γ du Florilège Coislin, in Byzantion, 78, 2008, p. 159–223.
   [Google Scholar]
10. I. De Vos, E. Gielen, C. Macé, P. Van Deun, La lettre Β du Florilège Coislin : editio princeps, in Byzantion, 80, 2010, p. 72–120.
    [Google Scholar]
11. J. Froger, La critique des textes et son automatisation (Initiation aux nouveautés de la science 7), Paris, 1968.
    [Google Scholar]
12. R. Hanna, The Application of Thought to Textual Criticism in All Modes – with Apologies to A. E. Housman, in Studies in Bibliography, 53, 2000, p. 163–172.
    [Google Scholar]
13. C. Howe, A. Barbrook, L. Mooney, P. Robinson, Parallels between Stemmatology and Phylogenetics, in P. van Reenen, A. den Hollander, M. van Mulken (ed.), Studies in Stemmatology, t. II, Amsterdam-Philadelphia, 2004, p. 3–11.
    [Google Scholar]
14. A. Jones, The Properties of a Stemma : Relating the Manuscripts in Two Texts from the Canterbury Tales, in Parergon, 18.2, 2001, p. 35–53.
    [Google Scholar]
15. P. Lemey, M. Salemi, A. Vandamme (ed.), The Phylogenetic Handbook. A Practical Approach to Phylogenetic Analysis and Hypothesis Testing, 2^nd edition, Cambridge, 2009(également en ligne).
    [Google Scholar]
16. Y.-J. Lin, The Erotic Life of Manuscripts : New Testament Textual Criticism and the Biological Sciences, New York, 2016.
    [Google Scholar]
17. L. Levillain, Loup de Ferrières, Correspondance (Les Classiques de l’histoire de France au Moyen Âge 10, 16), vol. 1-2, Paris, 1927-1935.
    [Google Scholar]
18. P. Maas, Textkritik, 2., verbesserte und vermehrte Auflage, Leipzig, 1950.
    [Google Scholar]
19. C. Macé, T. Schmidt, J.-F. Weiler, Le classement des manuscrits par la statistique et la phylogénétique : Les cas de Grégoire de Nazianze et de Basile le Minime, in Revue d’histoire des textes, 31, 2001, p. 241–273.
    [Google Scholar]
20. C. Macé, P. Baret, Why Phylogenetic Methods Work : The Theory of Evolution and Textual Criticism, in C. Macé, P. Baret, A. Bozzi, L. Cignoni (ed.), The Evolution of Texts : Confronting Stemmatological and Genetical Methods. Proceedings of the International Workshop held in Louvain-la-Neuve on September 1-2, 2004) (Linguistica computazionale, Fascicoli monografici), Pisa-Roma, 2006, p. 89–108.
    [Google Scholar]
21. C. Macé, P. Baret, A. Lantin, Philologie et phylogénétique : regards croisés en vue d’une édition critique d’une homélie de Grégoire de Nazianze, in A. Bozzi, L. Cignoni, J.-L. Lebrave (ed.), Digital Technology and Philological Disciplines (Linguistica computazionale, Fascicoli monografici), Pisa-Roma, 2004, p. 305–341.
    [Google Scholar]
22. C. Macé, I. De Vos, K. Geuten, Comparing Stemmatological and Phylogenetic Methods to Understand the Transmission History of the Florilegium Coislinianum, in A. Bucossi, E. Kihlman, Ars Edendi Lecture Series, vol. II (Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis, Studia Latina Stockholmiensia 58), Stockholm, 2012, p. 107–129.
    [Google Scholar]
23. H.-I. Marrou, La technique de l’édition à l’époque patristique, in Vigiliae Christianae, 3, 1949, p. 208–224.
    [Google Scholar]
24. G. Pasquali, [Review of] Paul Maas, Textkritik, 1927, in Gnomon, 5, 1929, p. 417-435, p. 498–521.
    [Google Scholar]
25. G. Pasquali, Storia della tradizione e critica del testo, seconda edizione, con nuova prefazione e aggiunta di tre appendici, Firenze, 1952.
    [Google Scholar]
26. N. Platnick, H. D. Cameron, Cladistic Methods in Textual Lingustic, and Phylogenetic Analysis, in Systematic Zoology, 26.4, 1977, p. 380–385.
    [Google Scholar]
27. M. Reeve, Da Madvig a Maas, con deviazioni, in E. Ghidetti, A. Pagnini (ed.), Sebastiano Timpanaro e la cultura del secondo Novecento, Roma, 2005, p. 161-170 [repr. M. Reeve, Manuscripts and Methods : Essays on Editing and Transmission (Storia e letteratura 270), Roma, 2011, p. 45-54].
    [Google Scholar]
28. M. Reeve, Shared Innovations, Dichotomies, and Evolution, in A. Ferrari (ed.), Filologia classica e filologia romanza : esperienze ecdotiche a confronto. Atti del Convegno Roma 25-27 maggio 1995, Spoleto, 1998, p. 445-505 [repr. M. Reeve, Manuscripts and Methods : Essays on Editing and Transmission (Storia e letteratura 270), Roma, 2011, p. 55-103].
    [Google Scholar]
29. T. Roos, T. Heikkilä, Evaluating Methods for Computer-Assisted Stemmatology using Artificial Benchmark Data Sets, in Literary and Lingustic Computing, 24.4, 2009, p. 417–433.
    [Google Scholar]
30. M. Spencer, E. Davidson, A. Barbrook, C. Howe, Phylogenetics of Artificial Manuscripts, in Journal of Theoretical Biology, 227, 2004, p. 503–511.
    [Google Scholar]
31. P. Trovato, Everything you always wanted to know about Lachmann’s method. A non-standard handbook of genealogical textual criticism in the age of post-structuralism, cladistics and copy-text (Storie e linguaggi 7), Padova, 2014.
    [Google Scholar]
32. Understanding evolution. Your one-step source for information on evolution : http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/phylogenetics_01f.
    [Google Scholar]
33. M. Weitzman, The Evolution of the Manuscript Tradition, in Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A (General), 150.4, 1987, p. 287–308.
    [Google Scholar]
34. E. O. Wiley (ed.), The Compleat Cladist. A Primer of Phylogenetic Procedures, Lawrence, 1991.
    [Google Scholar]
35. H. Windram, M. Spencer, C. Howe, Phylogenetic Analysis of Manuscript Traditions, and the Problem of Contamination, in C. Macé, P. Baret, A. Bozzi, L. Cignoni (ed.), The Evolution of Texts : Confronting Stemmatological and Genetical Methods. Proceedings of the International Workshop held in Louvain-la-Neuve on September 1-2, 2004) (Linguistica computazionale, Fascicoli monografici), Pisa-Roma, 2006, p. 141–156.
    [Google Scholar]
36. J. Zetzel, [Review of] G. Arrighetti et al., Giorgio Pasquali sessant’anni dopo. Atti della Giornata di studio Firenze, 1° ottobre 2012 (Margaritae 2), Firenze, 2014, in Bryn Mawr Classical Review, 2015.04.07.
    [Google Scholar]