rjensen at SAINTMARYS.EDU
Mon Jun 21 09:09:30 CDT 2004
John Grehan wrote:
> At 08:42 PM 6/18/04 +0200, pierre deleporte wrote:
> >OK you restate your view, but it is simply wrong as cladistics goes. If we
> >have surmounted the semantic problem about "phenetic" (concerns analysis,
> >not characters) and we do agree on what "overall similarity" means (i.e.
> >between taxa, not characters), hence your statement is still wrong.
> We will just have to agree to disagree. I view phenetic characters as
> characters that individually represent overall similarity of a feature. To
> me that's phenetic.
Here, perhaps, is a major part of the problem. Overall similarity is not a
function of a single character - I don't know how a single character can
illustrate overall similarity. Overall similarity refers to a measure of
similarity (e.g., a simple matching coefficient, Manhattan distance, Pearson
correlation) between all pair-wise comparisons of taxa (e.g., A vs. B; A vs. C;
B vs. C) "over all characters in the data matrix."
This is why definitions are important!
Richard J. Jensen | tel: 574-284-4674
Department of Biology | fax: 574-284-4716
Saint Mary's College | e-mail: rjensen at saintmarys.edu
Notre Dame, IN 46556 | http://www.saintmarys.edu/~rjensen
More information about the Taxacom