[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Taylor" <email@example.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 11:00 AM
I think the biggest danger of cladistics is that it's so easy to
misinterpret the results as being much more solidly established than
they really are. Perhaps all papers containing cladistic analyses
should have to use the heading "WARNING - LARK'S VOMIT"
just before the results of the analysis?
I think what's going on is that people are just misled by two conflicting
traditions: by convention, cladograms almost never contain stippled lines,
while precladistic phylogenetic trees consist mostly of stippled lines.
Instead, cladograms ideally contain _quantitative_ ( = scientific)
equivalents of stippled lines, such as bootstrap and Bremer support values.
Of course they often don't...
- From: Caique Soares Mulatinho <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- From: Mike Taylor <email@example.com>