distance based DNA trees

[Richard.Zander at MOBOT.ORG]

-----Original Message-----
From: B.J.Tindall [mailto:bti at DSMZ.DE]
Not "just anything would be possible."

If you subscribe to Bayesian methods, the possible trees are the several
most reasonable ones, given theory and as their probabilities add to some
credibility interval, say 95%. Sometimes, not often, there is only one
reasonable tree.

The major problem with Bayesian methods are when priors are hunches, notions
or conjectures. This can be avoided with decent data about the priors.

______________________
Richard H. Zander
Bryology Group
Missouri Botanical Garden
PO Box 299
St. Louis, MO 63166-0299
richard.zander at mobot.org <mailto:richard.zander at mobot.org>
Voice: 314-577-5180
Fax: 314-577-9595
Websites
Bryophyte Volumes of Flora of North America:
http://ridgwaydb.mobot.org/bfna/bfnamenu.htm
Res Botanica:
http://ridgwaydb.mobot.org/resbot/index.htm
Shipping address for UPS, etc.:
Missouri Botanical Garden
4344 Shaw Blvd.
St. Louis, MO 63110
 Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2004 1:51 AM
To: TAXACOM at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU
Subject: Re: [TAXACOM] distance based DNA trees

Rob,
Interesting comments, which can be explained. ALL methods of evaluation,
whether it be neighbor-joining, maximum parsimony, or even maximum
likelihood include an underlying assumption that "parsimony of evolution"
is operating. Thus both phenetic and cladistic approaches include some
underlying reference to parsimony, without which just anything would be
possible.
Brian