[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Centrosaurines

In a message dated 95-10-30 13:50:08 EST, martz@holly.ColoState.EDU (Jeffrey
Martz) writes:

>    On misconception I had when I responded to G.O.s(??) posting on 
>transitional forms in a cladogram was that a cladogram is a 
>"family tree".  It is not, merely a chart of characteristics.  It might 
>well be a useful tool, or even the most important tool in constructing a 
>phylogenetic tree, but I think G.O. has the right idea in that you have 
>to consider other factors as well.   

To put together a phylogeny, we should throw everything we've got into the
problem: cladistic analysis, biogeography, mechanical functional analysis,
DNA sequencing, and so forth. Cladistic analysis will produce a cladogram,
but there is no reason to expect the most parsimonious cladogram to be
correct in all instances--and in fact every reason to expect it to be
incorrect in a few instances. (A 95% confidence level entitles about one
cladogram in 20 to be wrong.)