Tom DiBenedetto tdib at UMICH.EDU
Wed Oct 2 09:41:27 CDT 1996

On Wed, 2 Oct 1996 09:22:17 -0700 (PDT), James Lyons-Weiler wrote:

>The "accepted as homologous" part is where the assumptions I listed are

well fine,  but your initial comments were directed at the

> I am not at all confusing the character evolution models of maximum
>likelihood with the models of phylogeny that people carry aroun in their

my point was not that you are confused, but that your presentation
confused the issues of process models and background assumptions.

> A standard of G. Nelson is that "conclusions follow from
>assumptions".  Unless the assumptions of the phylogenetic model of
>diversificcation can be made explicit, they cannot be tested in specific
>instances, and erroneous assumptions will lead to erroneous phylogenies.

well G. Nelson also has waxed prolific on the distinctions between
empirical methods of character ordering and particular models of
evolutionary process,,,see "Cladistics and Evolutionary Models"  1989
Cladistics  5:275-89
Tom DiBenedetto
Fish Division
Museum of Zoology
University of Michigan

More information about the Taxacom mailing list