14, 2011 12:54 PM
To: Liam J. Revell; Joe Felsenstein; pasquale.r...@libero.it
Cc: R Sig Phylo Listserv
Subject: Re: [R-sig-phylo] Comparative Methods and Pseudo-Traits
Liam, Joe, Pasquale, all-
Thank you for your kind input.It seems that I am not the only one who
considers this issue at length
Hi David.
Poaching Intensity = beta0 + beta1*Body Size + e
I think it depends on how the residual error in the model is distributed
(esp. correlated) among species. It seems possible to invent
hypothetical scenarios (as I did in my previous email) about how the
residual error in poaching
Liam Revell wrote:
Poaching Intensity = beta0 + beta1*Body Size + e
I think it depends on how the residual error in the model is
distributed (esp. correlated) among species. It seems possible to
invent hypothetical scenarios (as I did in my previous email) about
how the residual
Hello all,
A recent discussion set my mind thinking on a particular issue and, once
again, I decided to ask for the general opinion of R-Sig-Phylo denizens. It
may be easier to start with an example.
Let's say that there exists a worker who is measuring several different
traits across a number of
Hi David.
In general it is inconsequential whether X or Y are biologically
inherited traits; but whether the residual error in Y given X is
correlated or independent among species. In the case of growth rate as
a function of habitat degradation this corresponds to:
Growth Rate = beta0 +
Liam wrote:
I'm not sure I entirely agree that we need to assume that the environmental
trait is evolving on the tree by Brownian motion. I believe that so long as
Y|X (in David's example, growth rate given habitat degradation) is evolving
by Brownian motion, we should be OK to use PIC
