[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Sobral and Langer 2008 (was pteros have lift-off)
> Namesake Peters has made an amniote analysis that got submitted to a
> journal, was sent out for peer-review, and was rejected long ago (long
> before we on this list explained to him how to prepare a data matrix for a
> phylogenetic, as opposed to phenetic, analysis). The data matrix contained
> lots of misinterpretations of line drawings in the literature, correlated
> characters, and so on; unsurprisingly, the resulting cladogram contained
> lots of, let's say, surprises. I don't know what has happened to that matrix
> since then, though.
Well, if David Peters sent a manuscript and it was not accepted, I
think it is not entirely his fault that we cannot see his ideas
published. If you, David Peters, can't find a peer-reviewed magazine
in which to publish your ideas, I think it would be good to show them
in a website or another publication, as way ago done by George
Olshevsky. At least I would be interested in reading the studies you
mention in the list.
On the data matrices, I think you can use phenetic matrices (the
primary one, I mean, before you start measuring distances) for
phylogenetic studies and vice-versa, except that I do not know if
there are analogs to additive, Sankoff, continous characters (which
can however be binaryzed).