Publishing on human origins

[Richard.Zander at MOBOT.ORG]

No, we are comparing apples and apples. Because the analytical results with
morphological and molecular data sets generally support each other,
morphological traits and molecular traits have much the same probabilistic
utility in statistical evaluations.

You may not have as high confidence intervals in morphological results, but
confidence intervals can be combined. E.g., rolling a hexagonal die four
times increases the chance of getting a "one" to 0.52, and a single flip of
a coin may be substituted. Two contiguous internodes at 0.78 CI can be
replaced by one at 0.952. (Got a paper in review with this.) So with
morphological data, a poorly supported ((A,B)C(D,E)) can be replaced with a
well supported ((A,B)(D,E)). Then test it with molecular data.



______________________
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: John Grehan [mailto:jgrehan at TPBMAIL.NET]
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 7:03 PM
To: TAXACOM at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU
Subject: Re: [TAXACOM] Publishing on human origins



A probability test might be suitable if one is comparing apples with
apples. In the case of morphological characters vs DNA sequences I don't
thing that would be the case.

snip

John