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

Re: Cladistics question

In a message dated 98-01-23 16:47:48 EST, th81@umail.umd.edu writes:

<< (Note that "small" can be much greater than 1: The tree on Figure 9 (p.
 of Chris Brochu's paper in the latest Journal of Vert Paleo is the consensus
 of 11,340 equally most parsimonious trees, but it has a helluva lot of
 structure to it.  11,340 is a lot, but it is a tiny, tiny fraction of the
 godzillions of possible trees for a matrix with 62 ingroup taxa). >>

And there is an almost equally "tiny, tiny" chance that it is correct...

<< The days of "do whatever makes you feel good" systematics are vanishing,
 although some still cling to them. >>

No, they're not vanishing. It is just that the things that make one feel good
about a particular kind of systematics are changing. All systematists perform
"do whatever makes you feel good" systematics, unless they're masochists. And
more and more systematists these days enjoy playing with computers. It makes
them "feel good."