In addition to the references to papers by Hansen and Bartoszek, and by Ives,
Midford and Garland, I would biasedly suggest this paper:
Felsenstein, J. 2008. Comparative methods with sampling error and
within-species variation: contrasts revisited and revised. American Naturalist
171:
...@umb.edumailto:liam.rev...@umb.edu
Date: Sunday, July 7, 2013 3:10 PM
To: Xavier Prudent prudentxav...@gmail.commailto:prudentxav...@gmail.com
Cc: mailman, r-sig-phylo
r-sig-phylo@r-project.orgmailto:r-sig-phylo@r-project.org
Subject: Re: [R-sig-phylo] question about measurement error in phylogenetic
signal
Hi Eliot Xavier.
I think that Xavier's suggestion is not a particularly good idea in this
case because random error will tend to depress phylogenetic signal. In
other words - random data error does not introduce random error in
phylogenetic signal, rather it biases phylogenetic signal
Dear Eliot,
One way to cope with the uncertainty on the inputs in an analysis is vary
these inputs by some amount (like +- 1 standard deviation) and rerun your
analysis. The spread of the result tells you then how robust your analysis
is.
Pay attention that the inputs may be varied in an
Hello all,
I have been trying to get something to work in a number of different
packages and with a number of different approaches today that I couldn't
get to run in a believable way. Before I spend another day on this, I was
wondering what people think about the idea in general.
I have a
