[Taxacom] cladistics (was: clique analysis in textbooks)

Barry Roth barry_roth at yahoo.com
Thu Aug 18 21:15:55 CDT 2011

Perhaps I missed it, but at any time has the complete morphological character/taxon matrix been posted here, such that any of us with an interest in method and outcome could analyze it by our own chosen means?  I don't mean a selection of characters that John Grehan or anyone else has chosen based on any criterion, but rather the assembled data that form the ground and starting point of any analysis.  Obviously, assembling such an array took a lot of scholarship, which deserves thanks and respect (not to mention credit whenever it's cited, formally or informally).  If that matrix is contained within a publication discussed (and which I in my sluggishness have failed to call up and read), I'd be grateful for a pointer to it.  The discussion of method here has become so ponderous, with each contributor sometimes seeming to speak with his/her own unique vocabulary, that I despair of getting anything further out of it.  But I'm still curious about the
 case in point, and (1) what would happen if we each applied our own methods -- algorithmic or seat-of-the-pants -- to it; (2) how sensitive the results would be to, e.g., different settings in PAUP; and (3) just how robust either or the two (no, wait, there's three) competing statements of relationship is.
.._ at v

From: Pierre Deleporte <pierre.deleporte at univ-rennes1.fr>
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2011 6:40 PM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] cladistics (was: clique analysis in textbooks)

Le 17/08/2011 14:41, John Grehan wrote:
> Pierre speaks, of course, authoritatively on such matters,

More information about the Taxacom mailing list