Joe Felsenstein wrote on 26/09/2009 21:48:
Elsa et Stéphane Bouee wrote:
I am currently doing a classification analysis on morphologic data using
modern methods of morphometry (procruste analysis).
The variables obtained are quantitative and I would like to use them in a
phylogenetic
Leandro Jones replied to Stephane Bouee:
One could argue that your characters are not defined using a
phylogenetic criterion; that is, when performing a phylogenetic
analysis (either by ML or Parsimony), you have to assume that your
dataset is made of homology hypotheses. That is, one could
When I wrote:
As what classifications should be, or whether methods should be
considered as making phylogenetic or phenetic classifications, I have my
own position, that no one else seems to back (in public, anyway). I
think that we should not think of these trees as classifications, and
If you want some real fun, sign on to the Taxacom mailing list and
post an opinion about whether a particular method is cladistic or
not.
But the heated exchange that might result is already anachronistic.
There's an expression in English, It's all over but the shouting.
The shouting will go
Elsa et Stéphane Bouee wrote:
I am currently doing a classification analysis on morphologic data
using
modern methods of morphometry (procruste analysis).
The variables obtained are quantitative and I would like to use
them in a
phylogenetic approach.
For this purpose I used 2 methods:
