More on the 'cladistics' of sequences

[Richard.Zander at MOBOT.ORG]

No, if we engage in a "discovery process" we can actually uncover the real
pattern in nature. It may be incredible to some, but I found the true
cladogram for the hominids hiding under a bridge just yesterday.

I here share this discovery with fellow taxacomers:
http://ridgwaydb.mobot.org/resbot/phyl/Cladogram_Wild.jpg

I hope this puts the argument to rest.

______________________
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



-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Jensen [mailto:rjensen at saintmarys.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 8:39 AM
To: Richard.Zander at MOBOT.ORG
Cc: TAXACOM at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU
Subject: Re: More on the 'cladistics' of sequences


Richard,

"Well, not really" what.  Of course morphological data can be used the same
way
as molecular data.  My point to John was that morphological data are no more
likely to yield a "correct" phylogeny than are any other type of data.  And,
as
we all know, we can never know if we have the "correct" phylogeny or not.
Lamboy's simulations documented that even when the correct phylogeny is
known,
maximum parsimony of the kinds of data matrices that most systematists
generate,
is not very accurate (his word).

Cheers,

Dick

Richard.Zander at MOBOT.ORG wrote:

> Well, not really. Morphological data can be used in the same way as
> molecular data to come up with testable, well supported hypotheses. Proof
is
> that morphological results generally duplicate molecular results. See my:
> http://www.phyloinformatics.org/pdf/2.pdf paper for how to estimate
> confidence intervals for morphologically based cladogram internodes.
>
> Accuracy is of course the big bugaboo but is a problem for molecular data,
> too.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Jensen [mailto:rjensen at SAINTMARYS.EDU]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 7:23 AM
> To: TAXACOM at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU
> Subject: Re: [TAXACOM] More on the 'cladistics' of sequences
>
> Morphological data are especially difficult to
> evaluate and, in fact, are unlikely to provide "accurate" phylogenies (see
> Lamboy, 1994. Systematic Botany 19: 489-505). Yes, Lamboy's analyses were
> based on simulated data, but the data matrices generated were not unlike
> real morphological data matrices.
>
> ______________________
> 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

--
Richard J. Jensen              | tel: 574-284-4674
Department of Biology      | fax: 574-284-4716
Saint Mary's College         | e-mail: rjensen at saintmarys.edu
Notre Dame, IN 46556    | http://www.saintmarys.edu/~rjensen