Assumptions and reliability of solutions

[Richard.Zander at MOBOT.ORG]

Didn't say biosystematics were more statistically reliable. I was pointing
out that a line of study, at least in my field, is no longer terribly
attractive to students. Yet it is rewarding.

-----Original Message-----
From: Curtis Clark [mailto:jcclark-lists at EARTHLINK.NET]
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 8:03 PM
To: TAXACOM at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU
Subject: Re: [TAXACOM] Assumptions and reliability of solutions


on 2005-03-14 15:17 Richard.Zander at MOBOT.ORG wrote:
> (2) you can do some "biosystematics" (remember biosystematics?) like
common
> garden or reciprocal transplant work (or whatever zoologists do that is
> equivalent). It's too bad that work doesn't have the students or cachet it
> once had. Lot of potential there to solve taxonomic problems.

As a cladistic biosystematist, I'd be interested to know how it is that
biosystematic studies are more statistically reliable.

My measure of good systematics is "multiple lines of evidence". Of
course I know that "multiple" is a slippery critter statistically.

--
Curtis Clark                  http://www.csupomona.edu/~jcclark/
Web Coordinator, Cal Poly Pomona                 +1 909 979 6371
Professor, Biological Sciences                   +1 909 869 4062