[Taxacom] Antw:Re: Evolution of human-ape relationships, remains open for investigation

[Pierre Deleporte]

I bet Peter is suggesting that you read it before talking of cladistic 
analysis with outgroup rooting
I further bet that Peter is expecting that this reading could help you 
to understand your own logical incoherence - like a priori selecting 
characters a clique-lique way, while performing standard parsimony 
analysis on the surviving data set, while acknowledging at the same time 
that the characters you assassinated would have survived for an analysis 
at a larger phylogenetic scale (see you last posts), all kinds of 
inconsistencies the Maddisons would certainly not recommend - see also 
your pet textbooks (if any, I have growing doubts about this...)

Pierre


Le 12/08/2011 18:20, John Grehan wrote:
> So what is the point you want to make with respect to Maddison et al?
>
> John Grehan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: P.H. HOVENKAMP [mailto:phovenkamp at casema.nl]
> Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 4:57 PM
> To: John Grehan; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Antw:Re: [Taxacom] Evolution of human-ape relationships, remains open for investigation
>
> This is exactly the topic of the discussion in the 70ties/80ies I referred to earlier.
>
> If this post makes it to the list: scroll down in John's previous message to find a number of references to classic papers in which this topic is treated. To which may be added a paper by Maddison, Donoghue and Maddison from 1984 on outgroups and parsimony.
>
> Apparently, these are still relevant, and are to be considered required reading.
>
> Peter Hovenkamp
>
> Op 11/08/11, John Grehan<jgrehan at sciencebuff.org>  schreef:
>
>> "Binary transformation series, whether restricted in a way that one
>> character state is present in the ingroup and absent in the outgroup or
>> not, contribute the same number of steps to a parsimony analysis
>> independently of the polarity assessment so identifying polarity in this
>> characters prior to the analysis is irrelevant."
>>
>> But an algorithm cannot distinguish derived states if they are not
>> specified. If one mixes in non-derived states and codes them as such,
>> then no problem - but then why bother including them?
>>
>> John Grehan
>>
>>
>> -- 
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> Taxacom Mailing List
>> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>>
>> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these methods:
>>
>> (1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org
>>
>> (2) a Google search specified as:  site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
> _______________________________________________
>
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these methods:
>
> (1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> (2) a Google search specified as:  site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here


-- 
Pierre DELEPORTE
UMR6552 EthoS
Université Rennes 1
CNRS
Station Biologique
35380 PAIMPONT
tél (+33) 02 99 61 81 63
fax (+33) 02 99 61 81 88