species concepts, etc

[Claudio at]

Dave Chesmore a =E9crit:

> I have just returned from a European Science Foundation meeting on
> Systematic Biology which is aiming to develop a future programme in
> systematic biology.
>
> I presented a paper on computer-aided taxonomy which includes
> within its remit automated species identification, key systems for
> identification and all aspects of computer applications in systematics.
>  I am attempting to define the concept mroe closely.
>
> At the meeting, I was not entirely surprised that different phylogeneti=
c
> approaches (morphology, rbcl, r-DNA) and analysis methods
> (parsimony, etc) produced different phyogenies.  What DID surprise
> me is that there appears to be no concensus as to which is best.
> Each person appeared to have his/her own favorite method!
>
> My question is - does anyone know of any research, papers, etc for
> comparative studies of the various methods giving objective
> comparisons?
>
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D
> Dr David Chesmore, FRES
> Control & Intelligent Systems Engineering Group
> Dept. of Electronic Engineering
> University of Hull, Hull, HU6 7RX
> Tel: +482 465062;  Fax: +482 466664
> Email:  E.D.Chesmore at E-Eng.Hull.AC.UK
> Web page: http://www.hull.ac.uk/php/eepmds/home.htm

A mon humble avis d'=E9tudiant, il n'y a pas de meilleur m=E9thode.
N'essayez pas de savoir qu'elle est LA meilleure m=E9thode pour la
reconstruction phylog=E9n=E9tique. Les diff=E9rentes approches permettent=
 de
tester les arbres obtenus les uns avec les autres.
La CONGRUENCE permet de juger de la meilleure phylog=E9nie concensuelle...