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

Re: Sci Am - present.



In a message dated 98-02-18 02:35:17 EST, cbrochu@fmppr.fmnh.org writes:

<< Based on these, parsimony is a reliable tool.
 Likelihood methods, from these analyses, may be more reliable, but these
 are model-driven and much more appropriate for molecular data. >>

Not particularly reliable. Talk at the SVP this fall noted about 18% of
cladograms failed to reconstruct an artificial phylogeny even after
stratigraphic data was included in the analysis. I was willing to give
cladistics 90-95%, but I didn't expect it to be as bad as 82%. A summary of
other problems--with molecular cladistics--appears in a news article in one of
the earlier January issues of Science (Jan 9??). These problems extrapolate
easily to morphocladistics.