[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: a closer look at Hanson 2006
David Peters wrote-
Above I have listed many 'bumps' in your 'blend'. If your results produce
a hundredth of 34,000+, then your results produced 340 trees. Right?
That's still too many, and more than one, which is the number you are
A comment regarding an impression I get from you, David- the number of most
parsimonious trees found by PAUP is not indicative of the accuracy of the
results. A large number of most parsimonious trees merely means the
analysis lacks the characters needed to place several taxa unambiguously.
It's possible to make a single MPT that's grossly inaccurate due to not
including conflicting characters, not ordering characters, ignoring