The attitrion of taxonomic expertise
weiler at ERS.UNR.EDU
Fri Oct 18 08:31:45 CDT 1996
On Fri, 18 Oct 1996, Alan Harvey wrote:
> Maybe it's just me, but favoring partition A over partition B simply
> because you applied a statistical test to A but not B seems to violate the
> most basic premises of statistical testing. In any case, _my_ point was
> that statistical methods came into being because more direct ways of
> analyzing the results of molecular data sets were unavailable.
> Morphologists seldom use these statistical methods because they prefer the
> direct approach, and because of concerns about the statistics themselves,
> which, for example, seem to address questions that, in practice, are seldom
> relevant to morphological data sets (e.g., "Is there a significant
> phylogenetic signal in this data set?"). In this view, the mere
> availability of Statistics does not automatically confer superiority to one
> kind of data.
I could not agree more about the fallacyof accepting partition A
ober B simply because one has been analyzed; that, in fact, is my
point. I fail to see, however, why morphology can or should be excused
from statistical tests that are now available.
> Circularity arguments are logical landmines. I for one am skeptical of the
> argument that "because you use the characters to build the tree, you can't
> use the tree to study characters." And in any case, I described using the
> tree to identify characters that should be re-evaluated, not to do the
> actual evaluation. There are lots of interesting issues here!
To identify a character state as a synapomorphic because it is not
homoplastic on the tree it helped you choose is entirely circular. What
the statistical test I described avoids is relying on that circularity.
It does this by measuring a predictable consequence of the presence of
phylogenetic information in a matrix without using trees at all. It
does all of this with one of the simplest of tests (student's t-test
for two means). This is helpful because cladistic parsimony will give you
a set of optimal trees even for random data, and prevents the application
of spurious, non-informative data. I hope it's found to be helpful.
\ / / \ / JAMES LYONS-WEILER ______________
\/ / \/ |..............|
\ / / |..............|
\/ / DOCTORAL PROGRAM IN |..............|
\ / ECOLOGY, EVOLUTION, AND |...***........|
\ / CONSERVATION BIOLOGY |..*****.......|
\ / |.******.......|
\/ 1000 VALLEY ROAD/186 |********......|
______________ THE UNIVERSITY OF --------------
| will perform | NEVADA, RENO
| statistical | RENO, NEVADA 89512-0013
| phylogenetic |
| analyses for | "(Biology) is not religion; if it were, we'd
| food | have a much easier time raising money."
-------------- -Leon Lederman
More information about the Taxacom