[Taxacom] Antw:Re: Evolution of human-ape relationships, remains open for investigation
pierre.deleporte at univ-rennes1.fr
Fri Aug 12 11:38:20 CDT 2011
I bet Peter is suggesting that you read it before talking of cladistic
analysis with outgroup rooting
I further bet that Peter is expecting that this reading could help you
to understand your own logical incoherence - like a priori selecting
characters a clique-lique way, while performing standard parsimony
analysis on the surviving data set, while acknowledging at the same time
that the characters you assassinated would have survived for an analysis
at a larger phylogenetic scale (see you last posts), all kinds of
inconsistencies the Maddisons would certainly not recommend - see also
your pet textbooks (if any, I have growing doubts about this...)
Le 12/08/2011 18:20, John Grehan wrote:
> So what is the point you want to make with respect to Maddison et al?
> John Grehan
> -----Original Message-----
> 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.
> Peter Hovenkamp
> 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
> 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
Université Rennes 1
tél (+33) 02 99 61 81 63
fax (+33) 02 99 61 81 88
More information about the Taxacom