If you are trying to mimic real data, then perhaps you have some fossil data to
go on? If not, then you can try to pick a "reasonable" value based on other
biological knowledge. Check the Garland et al. (1993) for how we did it.
Cheers,
Ted
From: Bryan McLean [bryansmcl...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tu
Thanks Joe and Ted,
By similar scaling, I just meant (as Ted guessed) that the root value depends
on the empirical trait data, and does not start at 0 or 1, e.g., and thus
produces simulated values that can be directly compared to the true data. Under
a Brownian model, the mean trait value is s
This is a good point and one that is often glossed over.
We talked about it quite a bit here:
Garland, T., Jr., A. W. Dickerman, C. M. Janis, and J. A. Jones. 1993.
Phylogenetic analysis of covariance by computer simulation. Systematic Biology
42:265–292.
http://www.biology.ucr.edu/people/facult
Bryan McLean --
> I’m working to simulate multiple continuous characters on a known
> phylogeny (using several of the standard models), and I want to compare
> properties of the simulated datasets to an empirical dataset. My question
> is: what is the standard method for ensuring that those datas
Hi list,
I’m working to simulate multiple continuous characters on a known phylogeny
(using several of the standard models), and I want to compare properties of the
simulated datasets to an empirical dataset. My question is: what is the
standard method for ensuring that those datasets (simulate
