Sorry— I meant aov.phylo (geiger function), not phly.aov.
J
> On Nov 15, 2018, at 3:00 PM, Jacob Berv
> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone —
> It seems like the solution is that I was looking at the wrong p-value, as is
> often the case!
>
> From Liam:
> "The issue may be that you need to look at the
Hi everyone —
It seems like the solution is that I was looking at the wrong p-value, as is
often the case!
>From Liam:
"The issue may be that you need to look at the p-value from the internal
print-out of aov.phylo not from the summary."
I was using the summary() function to examine the model
Hi Jacob.
As far as I know, aov.phylo and phylANOVA should be doing more or less
the same thing. With random data if I run enough simulations for the
null distribution of F the P-values of the two different implementations
come out almost exactly the same. One difference that I noted is that
As the lead author of the paper in question, I'll be curious to find out
what you uncover.
Thanks and cheers,
Ted
Theodore Garland, Jr., Distinguished Professor
Department of Evolution, Ecology, and Organismal Biology (EEOB)
University of California, Riverside
Riverside, CA 92521
Office
Dear R-sig-phylo,
I was wondering if anyone on here might be able to help me understand the
difference between phytool’s implementation of phylogenetic ANOVA and geiger’s
implementation. From the respective documentation, it seems that both
approaches rely on and cite the same reference:
