[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Reduced Consensus (Was: Afrotheria revisited)
David Marjanovic writes:
> > Autapomorphies shouldn't be a problem, since they just make the
> > OTU distinct within the clade that its other characters assign it
> > to. Its a funny mix of synapomorphies that will do for you.
> That's often the same -- the autapomorphies that make a long branch
> will often also be autapomorphies of another clade, producing
> noise. Many of them will be reversals, producing more noise...
Thank you. You're right of course, I was being sloppy here. It is
truly unique character states that are "safe" in terms of not mucking
up the resolution an analysis; but a characters that is autapomorphic
below one node may also well by autapomorphic below and second (and
synapomophic on a third).
> > If it's any use to you, I am :-) Seriously, it's not cheating.
> > If you excluded it from the analysis it would be cheating. Think
> > of it like a football league.
> How refreshing to have someone explain something by something other
> than baseball! ;-)
> (I like saying that, having read Gould's Full House, I now
> understand evolution, but I still haven't understood baseball.)
Baseball -- the definitive, unsinkable counter-argument to anyone who
claims that Americans are slipping behind the rest of the world. And
country whose kids can understand it is worthy of great respect.
(That said, I would still argue that cricket is superior as it's the
only game whose laws include rules about tea-breaks.)
/o ) \/ Mike Taylor <email@example.com> http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\ "I know if I had one of those [Pterosaur crests], women would
be throwing themselves at me, convinced of my sexual prowess
and reproductive fitness, and men would shrink from me, sure
that my strength greatly exceeded theirs" -- Chris Bennett.