[Taxacom] Reproducibility of phylogenetic analysis

Richard Zander Richard.Zander at mobot.org
Wed Jan 27 09:21:24 CST 2010


Interesting exchange here. It reflects the difficulty of checking
results in systematics. If we could test a process against examples of
the process, bob's your uncle. But only part of systematics is process
(evolution) the rest consists of a series of one-time historical events
(speciation events and the like). Evolution we can test, with
difficulty, as a process, but cladograms and phenograms are usually
treated as things in themselves, the ends of analysis.

*****************************
Richard H. Zander 
Voice: 314-577-0276
Missouri Botanical Garden
PO Box 299
St. Louis, MO 63166-0299 USA
richard.zander at mobot.org
Web sites: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/
and http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/bfna/bfnamenu.htm
Modern Evolutionary Systematics Web site:
http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/21EvSy.htm
*****************************

-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
[mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Dick Jensen
Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2010 6:54 PM
To: Stephen Thorpe
Cc: Bob Mesibov; TAXACOM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Reproducibility of phylogenetic analysis

Gosh, Stephen,that sounds amazingly like the criticisms of phenetics
that lead (in part) to the cladistic revolution - too many ways to
determine similarity and find clusters.

The more things change, the more they stay the same!

Dick J

Richard Jensen, Professor
Department of Biology
Saint Mary's College
Notre Dame, IN 46556

tel: 574-284-4674





More information about the Taxacom mailing list