[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Cladism is not an inkblot
Quoting Nick Pharris <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
> One of my profs has been using a technique known as "clique analysis" to
> determine the phylogeny of Chinese dialects. In this method, as he's
> explained it, the favored tree is the one congruent with the
> distributions of the greatest number of characters. Is anyone on the list
> familiar with this method, and can anyone give me a critique?
Clique analysis HAS been applied to phylogeny. AFAIK, it is not used (at least
not widely) anymore. I do not feel qualified to summarize the reasons why, but
if I add to the description, I think you might get the idea. I have always been
taught that, contrary to the above description, clique analysis does not find
the tree congruent with the greatest number of characters (such a description
pretty much outlines the application of parsimony to phylogenetic
reconstruction). Rather, it constructs a tree based ONLY on the larget SET of
congruent characters. Thus, homoplaisy is eliminated from the matrix _a priori_
of analysis. If anyone can clarify this further, or tell us if I have
misrepresented clique analysis, please speak up.
BTW: this topic is mentioned in Schuh's recent systematics text (sorry, I'm
about to teach and I can't spare the minute to look it up). I will not
recommend purchase, but you may get some illumination there.