[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Various & Sundry (was RE: Dinosaur Genera List corrections #153 (JOKE))
Thomas Holtz wrote-
> Whoa there. It was an important early work, but as you state it it
> that this was an analysis run comprably to modern standards. However,
> is not the case. The "matrix" was not evaluated for parsimony analysis,
> thus the tree presented is not necessarily the most parsimonious tree.
Yeah. I should have explained a bit better. Of course, phylogenetic
programs were unknown at the time and his matrix was more in the form of a
table. Still, he had his characters placed at certain points on the
cladogram to help support his phylogeny. I simply wanted to test if his
phylogeny held up under a parsimony analysis and if updating his matrix
would affect it. As far as I know, it's a fairly unique phylogeny (only
approached by Paul (1984, 1988)) that hasn't shown up in later analyses.