Leandro Jones -- > Nick's rules won't allways work in a Parsimony context. For example, a > position like this one: > 1 A > 2 A > 3 T > 4 C > would be "informative" under rules (a) and (b), but it is in reality > uninformative, as any of the possible trees have a length of 2. Thus, > this character tells us nothing about _phylogeny_.
I disagree. If the only way you can interpret anything is by parsimony, sure. But for statistical phylogenetics, it has information. It works against any phylogeny that has all its branch lengths short, for example. Eliminating that character, not telling the statistical method you did that, and then going ahead with the analysis is a Big Mistake. J.F. ---- Joe Felsenstein j...@gs.washington.edu Department of Genome Sciences and Department of Biology, University of Washington, Box 355065, Seattle, WA 98195-5065 USA _______________________________________________ R-sig-phylo mailing list R-sig-phylo@r-project.org https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-phylo
