Hi Anne, Ted, Liam et al!,
On 25/09/10 02:51, tgarl...@ucr.edu wrote:
Hi Anne,
I am going to put this back online so others might benefit or chime in.
If you literally want to do correlations, then phylogenetically independent
contrasts may be easiest. You just compute the standardized
Hi all,
Simon Blomberg wrote on 27/09/2010 08:10:
Hi Anne, Ted, Liam et al!,
On 25/09/10 02:51, tgarl...@ucr.edu wrote:
Hi Anne,
I am going to put this back online so others might benefit or chime in.
If you literally want to do correlations, then phylogenetically
independent contrasts may
Hi everybody,
I am able replicate the results of independent contrasts and PGLS
employing R (mapping the intercept to the phylogenetic means). I also
recall comparing results of PDAP employing a star phylogeny against a
regular regression in SPSS for Windows. And as far as I can tell, this
Enrico Rezende wrote on 27/09/2010 18:26:
Hi everybody,
I am able replicate the results of independent contrasts and PGLS
employing R (mapping the intercept to the phylogenetic means). I also
recall comparing results of PDAP employing a star phylogeny against a
regular regression in SPSS for
This one left my outbox too fast:
Emmanuel Paradis wrote on 27/09/2010 19:08:
tr - rtree(10)
Cannot be closer to the PIC model. And both models have the same number
of df (4 - 2 for the PICs; 5 - 3 for the GLS).
This should be... 9 - 2 for the PICs; 10 - 3 for the GLS (number of
points
Simon Blomberg wrote on 27/09/2010 08:10:
(Ted Garland had written:)
Another interesting technical point. In general, PIC and PGLS are the
same, especially if you stick with a simple Brownian motion model of
character evolution. However, their complete mathematical identity
has not,
