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

Re: Reduced Consensus (Was: Afrotheria revisited)



Mike Taylor wrote:

(That said, I would still argue that cricket is superior as it's the
only game whose laws include rules about tea-breaks.)

Ahhh.... given current events, perhaps this is not the best time to champion the virtues of cricket. ;-)


(Though I agree with your sentiments vis-a-vis cricket vs baseball.)

Mickey Mortimer wrote:

So really it's not too unlikely. Especially since tons of relevent taxa weren't included. How about > some lipotyphlans, bats, carnivorimorphs, afrosoricans, meridungulates, etc.?

You're asking for a whole phylogeny of placentals in that case. For example, if you include carnivoramorphs, then you have to include 'creodonts'... and so on.


Really, the entire tree's poorly supported. Bootstrapping results in 95% support for Rhynchocyon+Myohyrax, and 68% for Macroscelidea. 71% for Haplomylus+Macroscelidea and 66% for the clade of everything except Protungulatum and Mithrandir. Every other node is
supported by <50%.

Is this partly the consequence of low taxon sampling? Would adding more taxa for certain clades help 'firm up' the bootstrap support for some of the clades? In the analysis above, some very speciose clades (like Proboscidea, Perissodactyla, or Artiodactyla) are each represented by only one (fairly basal) taxon.


And I wonder what pulled _Ectocion_ and _Arsinoitherium_ together...?

Cheers

Tim

_________________________________________________________________
i'm making a difference. Make every IM count for the cause of your choice. Join Now. http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwme0080000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://im.live.com/messenger/im/home/?source=hmtagline