[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Dino cladistics - long with requotations
At 12:14 PM 3/12/97 -0600, Jonathan R. Wagner wrote:
> If my reading of the Gauthier paper was accurate in its
>representation of Consistancy index as # characters/ # steps, then it
>is not really a measure of how well the data support the cladogram,
>nor how close the cladogram represents reality. It is simply a
>measure of the degree of homoplaisy in the phylogenetic hypothesis.
That seems to be close to my understanding.
> If this is the case, a cladogram with a higher CI is not
>necessarily any better than one with a lower CI using a *different*
>dataset. If they are derived from the same dataset, however, the
>higher CI is de facto more parsimonious, and [is] thus to be favored.
Good point. You are most probably correct.
I was essentially giving it the most generous possible interpretation, by
acting as if homoplasy levels would be comparable across data sets.
Either way, of course, it is not at all equivalent to confidence level. In
fact your more conservative view makes it even *less* like a confidence level.
May the peace of God be with you firstname.lastname@example.org