[Taxacom] Antw:Re: Evolution of human-ape relationships, remains open for investigation
jgrehan at sciencebuff.org
Fri Aug 12 11:20:20 CDT 2011
So what is the point you want to make with respect to Maddison et al?
From: P.H. HOVENKAMP [mailto:phovenkamp at casema.nl]
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 4:57 PM
To: John Grehan; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Antw:Re: [Taxacom] Evolution of human-ape relationships, remains open for investigation
This is exactly the topic of the discussion in the 70ties/80ies I referred to earlier.
If this post makes it to the list: scroll down in John's previous message to find a number of references to classic papers in which this topic is treated. To which may be added a paper by Maddison, Donoghue and Maddison from 1984 on outgroups and parsimony.
Apparently, these are still relevant, and are to be considered required reading.
Op 11/08/11, John Grehan <jgrehan at sciencebuff.org> schreef:
> "Binary transformation series, whether restricted in a way that one
> character state is present in the ingroup and absent in the outgroup or
> not, contribute the same number of steps to a parsimony analysis
> independently of the polarity assessment so identifying polarity in this
> characters prior to the analysis is irrelevant."
> But an algorithm cannot distinguish derived states if they are not
> specified. If one mixes in non-derived states and codes them as such,
> then no problem - but then why bother including them?
> John Grehan
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these methods:
> (1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org
> (2) a Google search specified as: site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom your search terms here
More information about the Taxacom