Re: [R-sig-phylo] phyl.RMA error
Thank you Simone, I think we're going to first try the model in Rphylopars that accounts for measurement error and intraspecific variation. But we'll check out your JAGS program if that doesn't turn out to be appropriate for our dataset. Best, Ted -Original Message- From: Simone Blomberg [mailto:s.blombe...@uq.edu.au] Sent: Friday, June 12, 2020 1:21 AM To: Theodore Garland ; Ted Stankowich Cc: r-sig-phylo@r-project.org; Nicole Lopez Subject: Re: [R-sig-phylo] phyl.RMA error CAUTION: This email was sent from an external source. Use caution when replying, opening links or attachments. Hi all, If you want to go Bayesian, we provide a program in JAGS or BUGS that will do measurement error models incorporating phylogenetic uncertainty. (de Villemereuil et al. BMC Evolutionary Biology 2012, 12:102 http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/12/102, attached). We took our approach from the book by Carrol et al. which I highly recommend (Carroll RJ, Ruppert D, Stefanski LA: Measurement Error in Nonlinear Models: A Modern Perspective. Boca Raton, FL, USA, London, New York: CRC Press; 2006.). They condemn RMA (or "orthogonal" regression) because although the slope parameters of an ordinary regression are negatively biased in the presence of measurement error, the slopes are even more positively biased if you use orthogonal regression. A properly constructed measurement error model will give unbiased estimates (so long as the assumptions are met.) I think I might have been involved in the discussion on this list about the futility of RMA regression. I still stand by my views. Best, Simone. On 10/6/20 6:49 am, Theodore Garland wrote: > A slope from RMA will always be > than the corresponding OLS slope > because RMA = OLS/r, where r is the correlation coefficient. > And note that the RMA slope calculated this way is undefined if r = 0. > > This is why you want to use measurement-error models. > > Cheers, > Ted > > > > > On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 1:34 PM Ted Stankowich > > wrote: > >> Thank you Liam and Ted! >> That worked. I've never named my data columns this way and when I >> call names(Data), it does give me the column names "Binomial", >> "Skull", and "Tusk". This method appears to pull out the vectors and >> use them outside of the original dataframe, is this a particular >> requirement/feature of phyl.RMA? >> >> Regarding RMA vs. other methods, this is a study of allometry of >> tusks and antlers. In our first submission of this project we got >> raked over the coals for only using OLS methods so we're doing both >> OLS and RMA this time around, but are struggling to interpret the >> slope discrepancies between the two methods (RMA always returns >> larger slopes). There is measurement error in our independent factor >> (Skull) since some of those data come from PCA estimates based on >> landmark measures in skulls that were broken/partial (full skull >> length wasn't possible). We'll definitely look at the paper Ted >> posted though. There appears to be some strong divergent >> methodological opinions among the allometry community though, so it's hard >> to know the best way to proceed! >> >> Thanks! >> -Ted >> >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Liam J. Revell [mailto:liam.rev...@umb.edu] >> Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2020 1:07 PM >> To: Ted Stankowich ; >> r-sig-phylo@r-project.org >> Subject: Re: [R-sig-phylo] phyl.RMA error >> >> CAUTION: This email was sent from an external source. Use caution >> when replying, opening links or attachments. >> >> >> Hi Ted. >> >> It's a good bet that your input vectors, log(Skull) and log(Tusk), >> don't have names. >> >> In your case, if your data frame is called Data, you might first compute: >> >> ln.Skull<-setNames(log(Data$Skull),Data$Binomial) >> ln.Tusk<-setNames(log(Data$Tusk),Data$Binomial) >> >> and then run: >> >> Model<-phyl.RMA(ln.Skull,ln.Tusk,tree,h0=1.0) >> Model >> plot(Model) ## this is kind of cool. >> >> Note, that as pointed out in the documentation of the function: "some >> statistician think there is never a condition in which a >> reduced-major-axis regression should be used" (I believe this has >> even been discussed on this list); and "The statistical hypothesis >> testing is based on Clarke (1980; reviewed in McArdle 1988), which >> differs from some other implementations of non-phylogenetic major axis >> regression in R." >> >> All the best, Liam >> >> Liam J. Revell >> Associate Professor,
Re: [R-sig-phylo] phyl.RMA error
Right – I was saying it’s more of an issue with interpretation and comparing
with past studies, many of which don’t even incorporate phylogenetic methods
(traditional regression).
I found the Rphylopars package in R, which appears to consider both
intraspecific variation and measurement error (or at least multiple
measurements of the same species).
https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/Rphylopars/Rphylopars.pdf
Best,
Ted
From: Theodore Garland [mailto:theodore.garl...@ucr.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2020 1:49 PM
To: Ted Stankowich
Cc: Liam J. Revell ; r-sig-phylo@r-project.org; Nicole
Lopez
Subject: Re: [R-sig-phylo] phyl.RMA error
CAUTION: This email was sent from an external source. Use caution when
replying, opening links or attachments.
A slope from RMA will always be > than the corresponding OLS slope because RMA
= OLS/r, where r is the correlation coefficient.
And note that the RMA slope calculated this way is undefined if r = 0.
This is why you want to use measurement-error models.
Cheers,
Ted
On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 1:34 PM Ted Stankowich
mailto:theodore.stankow...@csulb.edu>> wrote:
Thank you Liam and Ted!
That worked. I've never named my data columns this way and when I call
names(Data), it does give me the column names "Binomial", "Skull", and "Tusk".
This method appears to pull out the vectors and use them outside of the
original dataframe, is this a particular requirement/feature of phyl.RMA?
Regarding RMA vs. other methods, this is a study of allometry of tusks and
antlers. In our first submission of this project we got raked over the coals
for only using OLS methods so we're doing both OLS and RMA this time around,
but are struggling to interpret the slope discrepancies between the two methods
(RMA always returns larger slopes). There is measurement error in our
independent factor (Skull) since some of those data come from PCA estimates
based on landmark measures in skulls that were broken/partial (full skull
length wasn't possible). We'll definitely look at the paper Ted posted though.
There appears to be some strong divergent methodological opinions among the
allometry community though, so it's hard to know the best way to proceed!
Thanks!
-Ted
-Original Message-
From: Liam J. Revell [mailto:liam.rev...@umb.edu<mailto:liam.rev...@umb.edu>]
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2020 1:07 PM
To: Ted Stankowich
mailto:theodore.stankow...@csulb.edu>>;
r-sig-phylo@r-project.org<mailto:r-sig-phylo@r-project.org>
Subject: Re: [R-sig-phylo] phyl.RMA error
CAUTION: This email was sent from an external source. Use caution when
replying, opening links or attachments.
Hi Ted.
It's a good bet that your input vectors, log(Skull) and log(Tusk), don't have
names.
In your case, if your data frame is called Data, you might first compute:
ln.Skull<-setNames(log(Data$Skull),Data$Binomial)
ln.Tusk<-setNames(log(Data$Tusk),Data$Binomial)
and then run:
Model<-phyl.RMA(ln.Skull,ln.Tusk,tree,h0=1.0)
Model
plot(Model) ## this is kind of cool.
Note, that as pointed out in the documentation of the function: "some
statistician think there is never a condition in which a reduced-major-axis
regression should be used" (I believe this has even been discussed on this
list); and "The statistical hypothesis testing is based on Clarke (1980;
reviewed in McArdle 1988), which differs from some other implementations of
non-phylogenetic major axis regression in R."
All the best, Liam
Liam J. Revell
Associate Professor, University of Massachusetts Boston Profesor Asistente,
Universidad Católica de la Ssma Concepción
web: http://faculty.umb.edu/liam.revell/, http://www.phytools.org
Academic Director UMass Boston Chile Abroad:
https://www.umb.edu/academics/caps/international/biology_chile
On 6/8/2020 4:18 PM, Ted Stankowich wrote:
> [EXTERNAL SENDER]
>
> Hello,
>
> We're trying to run phylogenetically corrected reduced major axes regression
> analyses and have encountered an error we can't debug. We're using the
> function phyl.RMA in the package 'phytools'. Here is the code we are using
> and the error it returns.
>
>
>
>> Model <- phyl.RMA(log(Skull), log(Tusk), tree, h0=1.0)
>
> Error in if (sign(beta1) != sign(h0)) { :
>
>missing value where TRUE/FALSE needed
>
> We can't seem to figure out which argument is missing, and we've tried
> including all of the T/F based arguments we think are possible. Our species
> dataset and nexus file are printed below. Any advice would be greatly
> appreciated.
>
> We have the following dataset:
> Binomial Skull Tusk
>
> 1 Tragulus_javanicus93.7 14.6
> 2 Tragulus_kanchil 99.7 13.9
> 3 Tragulus_napu 98.1 11.1
> 4 Tragulus_nigricans99.8 13.2
> 5 Moschiola_meminna
Re: [R-sig-phylo] phyl.RMA error
A slope from RMA will always be > than the corresponding OLS slope because
RMA = OLS/r, where r is the correlation coefficient.
And note that the RMA slope calculated this way is undefined if r = 0.
This is why you want to use measurement-error models.
Cheers,
Ted
On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 1:34 PM Ted Stankowich
wrote:
> Thank you Liam and Ted!
> That worked. I've never named my data columns this way and when I call
> names(Data), it does give me the column names "Binomial", "Skull", and
> "Tusk". This method appears to pull out the vectors and use them outside of
> the original dataframe, is this a particular requirement/feature of
> phyl.RMA?
>
> Regarding RMA vs. other methods, this is a study of allometry of tusks and
> antlers. In our first submission of this project we got raked over the
> coals for only using OLS methods so we're doing both OLS and RMA this time
> around, but are struggling to interpret the slope discrepancies between the
> two methods (RMA always returns larger slopes). There is measurement error
> in our independent factor (Skull) since some of those data come from PCA
> estimates based on landmark measures in skulls that were broken/partial
> (full skull length wasn't possible). We'll definitely look at the paper Ted
> posted though. There appears to be some strong divergent methodological
> opinions among the allometry community though, so it's hard to know the
> best way to proceed!
>
> Thanks!
> -Ted
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Liam J. Revell [mailto:liam.rev...@umb.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2020 1:07 PM
> To: Ted Stankowich ;
> r-sig-phylo@r-project.org
> Subject: Re: [R-sig-phylo] phyl.RMA error
>
> CAUTION: This email was sent from an external source. Use caution when
> replying, opening links or attachments.
>
>
> Hi Ted.
>
> It's a good bet that your input vectors, log(Skull) and log(Tusk), don't
> have names.
>
> In your case, if your data frame is called Data, you might first compute:
>
> ln.Skull<-setNames(log(Data$Skull),Data$Binomial)
> ln.Tusk<-setNames(log(Data$Tusk),Data$Binomial)
>
> and then run:
>
> Model<-phyl.RMA(ln.Skull,ln.Tusk,tree,h0=1.0)
> Model
> plot(Model) ## this is kind of cool.
>
> Note, that as pointed out in the documentation of the function: "some
> statistician think there is never a condition in which a reduced-major-axis
> regression should be used" (I believe this has even been discussed on this
> list); and "The statistical hypothesis testing is based on Clarke (1980;
> reviewed in McArdle 1988), which differs from some other implementations of
> non-phylogenetic major axis regression in R."
>
> All the best, Liam
>
> Liam J. Revell
> Associate Professor, University of Massachusetts Boston Profesor
> Asistente, Universidad Católica de la Ssma Concepción
> web: http://faculty.umb.edu/liam.revell/, http://www.phytools.org
>
> Academic Director UMass Boston Chile Abroad:
> https://www.umb.edu/academics/caps/international/biology_chile
>
> On 6/8/2020 4:18 PM, Ted Stankowich wrote:
> > [EXTERNAL SENDER]
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > We're trying to run phylogenetically corrected reduced major axes
> regression analyses and have encountered an error we can't debug. We're
> using the function phyl.RMA in the package 'phytools'. Here is the code we
> are using and the error it returns.
> >
> >
> >
> >> Model <- phyl.RMA(log(Skull), log(Tusk), tree, h0=1.0)
> >
> > Error in if (sign(beta1) != sign(h0)) { :
> >
> >missing value where TRUE/FALSE needed
> >
> > We can't seem to figure out which argument is missing, and we've tried
> including all of the T/F based arguments we think are possible. Our species
> dataset and nexus file are printed below. Any advice would be greatly
> appreciated.
> >
> > We have the following dataset:
> > Binomial Skull Tusk
> >
> > 1 Tragulus_javanicus93.7 14.6
> > 2 Tragulus_kanchil 99.7 13.9
> > 3 Tragulus_napu 98.1 11.1
> > 4 Tragulus_nigricans99.8 13.2
> > 5 Moschiola_meminna101. 14.6
> > 6 Moschus_berezovskii 134. 55.0
> > 7 Moschus_moschiferus 152. 52.9
> > 8 Muntiacus_muntjak193. 26.4
> > 9 Muntiacus_reevesi159. 23.4
> > 10 Muntiacus_truongsonensis 184. 27.7
> > 11 Muntiacus_vaginalis 203. 28.6
> > 12 Hydropotes_inermis 162. 48.5
> > 13 Hyemoschus_aquaticus 122. 20.1
> > 14 Elaphodus_cephalophus186. 17.3
> >
Re: [R-sig-phylo] phyl.RMA error
Thank you Liam and Ted!
That worked. I've never named my data columns this way and when I call
names(Data), it does give me the column names "Binomial", "Skull", and "Tusk".
This method appears to pull out the vectors and use them outside of the
original dataframe, is this a particular requirement/feature of phyl.RMA?
Regarding RMA vs. other methods, this is a study of allometry of tusks and
antlers. In our first submission of this project we got raked over the coals
for only using OLS methods so we're doing both OLS and RMA this time around,
but are struggling to interpret the slope discrepancies between the two methods
(RMA always returns larger slopes). There is measurement error in our
independent factor (Skull) since some of those data come from PCA estimates
based on landmark measures in skulls that were broken/partial (full skull
length wasn't possible). We'll definitely look at the paper Ted posted though.
There appears to be some strong divergent methodological opinions among the
allometry community though, so it's hard to know the best way to proceed!
Thanks!
-Ted
-Original Message-
From: Liam J. Revell [mailto:liam.rev...@umb.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2020 1:07 PM
To: Ted Stankowich ; r-sig-phylo@r-project.org
Subject: Re: [R-sig-phylo] phyl.RMA error
CAUTION: This email was sent from an external source. Use caution when
replying, opening links or attachments.
Hi Ted.
It's a good bet that your input vectors, log(Skull) and log(Tusk), don't have
names.
In your case, if your data frame is called Data, you might first compute:
ln.Skull<-setNames(log(Data$Skull),Data$Binomial)
ln.Tusk<-setNames(log(Data$Tusk),Data$Binomial)
and then run:
Model<-phyl.RMA(ln.Skull,ln.Tusk,tree,h0=1.0)
Model
plot(Model) ## this is kind of cool.
Note, that as pointed out in the documentation of the function: "some
statistician think there is never a condition in which a reduced-major-axis
regression should be used" (I believe this has even been discussed on this
list); and "The statistical hypothesis testing is based on Clarke (1980;
reviewed in McArdle 1988), which differs from some other implementations of
non-phylogenetic major axis regression in R."
All the best, Liam
Liam J. Revell
Associate Professor, University of Massachusetts Boston Profesor Asistente,
Universidad Católica de la Ssma Concepción
web: http://faculty.umb.edu/liam.revell/, http://www.phytools.org
Academic Director UMass Boston Chile Abroad:
https://www.umb.edu/academics/caps/international/biology_chile
On 6/8/2020 4:18 PM, Ted Stankowich wrote:
> [EXTERNAL SENDER]
>
> Hello,
>
> We're trying to run phylogenetically corrected reduced major axes regression
> analyses and have encountered an error we can't debug. We're using the
> function phyl.RMA in the package 'phytools'. Here is the code we are using
> and the error it returns.
>
>
>
>> Model <- phyl.RMA(log(Skull), log(Tusk), tree, h0=1.0)
>
> Error in if (sign(beta1) != sign(h0)) { :
>
>missing value where TRUE/FALSE needed
>
> We can't seem to figure out which argument is missing, and we've tried
> including all of the T/F based arguments we think are possible. Our species
> dataset and nexus file are printed below. Any advice would be greatly
> appreciated.
>
> We have the following dataset:
> Binomial Skull Tusk
>
> 1 Tragulus_javanicus93.7 14.6
> 2 Tragulus_kanchil 99.7 13.9
> 3 Tragulus_napu 98.1 11.1
> 4 Tragulus_nigricans99.8 13.2
> 5 Moschiola_meminna101. 14.6
> 6 Moschus_berezovskii 134. 55.0
> 7 Moschus_moschiferus 152. 52.9
> 8 Muntiacus_muntjak193. 26.4
> 9 Muntiacus_reevesi159. 23.4
> 10 Muntiacus_truongsonensis 184. 27.7
> 11 Muntiacus_vaginalis 203. 28.6
> 12 Hydropotes_inermis 162. 48.5
> 13 Hyemoschus_aquaticus 122. 20.1
> 14 Elaphodus_cephalophus186. 17.3
>
> And the following nexus tree:
>
> #NEXUS
> [R-package APE, Mon Jun 08 12:20:01 2020]
>
> BEGIN TAXA;
>DIMENSIONS NTAX = 12;
>TAXLABELS
> Tragulus_napu
> Tragulus_kanchil
> Tragulus_javanicus
> Hyemoschus_aquaticus
> Moschiola_meminna
> Muntiacus_reevesi
> Muntiacus_muntjak
> Muntiacus_truongsonensis
> Elaphodus_cephalophus
> Hydropotes_inermis
> Moschus_moschiferus
>
Re: [R-sig-phylo] phyl.RMA error
Hi Ted.
It's a good bet that your input vectors, log(Skull) and log(Tusk), don't
have names.
In your case, if your data frame is called Data, you might first compute:
ln.Skull<-setNames(log(Data$Skull),Data$Binomial)
ln.Tusk<-setNames(log(Data$Tusk),Data$Binomial)
and then run:
Model<-phyl.RMA(ln.Skull,ln.Tusk,tree,h0=1.0)
Model
plot(Model) ## this is kind of cool.
Note, that as pointed out in the documentation of the function: "some
statistician think there is never a condition in which a
reduced-major-axis regression should be used" (I believe this has even
been discussed on this list); and "The statistical hypothesis testing is
based on Clarke (1980; reviewed in McArdle 1988), which differs from
some other implementations of non-phylogenetic major axis regression in R."
All the best, Liam
Liam J. Revell
Associate Professor, University of Massachusetts Boston
Profesor Asistente, Universidad Católica de la Ssma Concepción
web: http://faculty.umb.edu/liam.revell/, http://www.phytools.org
Academic Director UMass Boston Chile Abroad:
https://www.umb.edu/academics/caps/international/biology_chile
On 6/8/2020 4:18 PM, Ted Stankowich wrote:
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Hello,
We're trying to run phylogenetically corrected reduced major axes regression
analyses and have encountered an error we can't debug. We're using the function
phyl.RMA in the package 'phytools'. Here is the code we are using and the error
it returns.
Model <- phyl.RMA(log(Skull), log(Tusk), tree, h0=1.0)
Error in if (sign(beta1) != sign(h0)) { :
missing value where TRUE/FALSE needed
We can't seem to figure out which argument is missing, and we've tried
including all of the T/F based arguments we think are possible. Our species
dataset and nexus file are printed below. Any advice would be greatly
appreciated.
We have the following dataset:
Binomial Skull Tusk
1 Tragulus_javanicus93.7 14.6
2 Tragulus_kanchil 99.7 13.9
3 Tragulus_napu 98.1 11.1
4 Tragulus_nigricans99.8 13.2
5 Moschiola_meminna101. 14.6
6 Moschus_berezovskii 134. 55.0
7 Moschus_moschiferus 152. 52.9
8 Muntiacus_muntjak193. 26.4
9 Muntiacus_reevesi159. 23.4
10 Muntiacus_truongsonensis 184. 27.7
11 Muntiacus_vaginalis 203. 28.6
12 Hydropotes_inermis 162. 48.5
13 Hyemoschus_aquaticus 122. 20.1
14 Elaphodus_cephalophus186. 17.3
And the following nexus tree:
#NEXUS
[R-package APE, Mon Jun 08 12:20:01 2020]
BEGIN TAXA;
DIMENSIONS NTAX = 12;
TAXLABELS
Tragulus_napu
Tragulus_kanchil
Tragulus_javanicus
Hyemoschus_aquaticus
Moschiola_meminna
Muntiacus_reevesi
Muntiacus_muntjak
Muntiacus_truongsonensis
Elaphodus_cephalophus
Hydropotes_inermis
Moschus_moschiferus
Moschus_berezovskii
;
END;
BEGIN TREES;
TRANSLATE
1Tragulus_napu,
2Tragulus_kanchil,
3Tragulus_javanicus,
4Hyemoschus_aquaticus,
5Moschiola_meminna,
6Muntiacus_reevesi,
7Muntiacus_muntjak,
8Muntiacus_truongsonensis,
9Elaphodus_cephalophus,
10 Hydropotes_inermis,
11 Moschus_moschiferus,
12 Moschus_berezovskii
;
TREE * UNTITLED = []
1:5.540957781,(2:2.978817423,3:2.978817423):2.562139698):10.78911152,4:16.33006601):6.360692368,5:22.69076035):5.725388419,(6:1.611149584,7:1.611149848):1.556474893,8:3.167624477):4.130280196,9:7.297904013):1.497063399,10:8.794967413):7.19682079,(11:2.539095678,12:2.539096008):13.45269085):12.42436025);
Dr. Ted Stankowich
Associate Professor
Department of Biological Sciences
California State University Long Beach
Long Beach, CA 90840
theodore.stankow...@csulb.edu
562-985-4826
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.csulb.edu%2Fmammal-lab%2Fdata=02%7C01%7Cliam.revell%40umb.edu%7C5a74928c910446b96b1508d80caf5765%7Cb97188711ee94425953c1ace1373eb38%7C0%7C0%7C637273294515730787sdata=7FUGnuFJCdRHmPiVrWPPAu%2BLEyK6O%2B4VyAKHz1n63qw%3Dreserved=0
@CSULBMammalLab
Dr. Ted Stankowich
Associate Professor
Department of
[R-sig-phylo] phyl.RMA error
Hello,
We're trying to run phylogenetically corrected reduced major axes regression
analyses and have encountered an error we can't debug. We're using the function
phyl.RMA in the package 'phytools'. Here is the code we are using and the error
it returns.
>Model <- phyl.RMA(log(Skull), log(Tusk), tree, h0=1.0)
Error in if (sign(beta1) != sign(h0)) { :
missing value where TRUE/FALSE needed
We can't seem to figure out which argument is missing, and we've tried
including all of the T/F based arguments we think are possible. Our species
dataset and nexus file are printed below. Any advice would be greatly
appreciated.
We have the following dataset:
Binomial Skull Tusk
1 Tragulus_javanicus93.7 14.6
2 Tragulus_kanchil 99.7 13.9
3 Tragulus_napu 98.1 11.1
4 Tragulus_nigricans99.8 13.2
5 Moschiola_meminna101. 14.6
6 Moschus_berezovskii 134. 55.0
7 Moschus_moschiferus 152. 52.9
8 Muntiacus_muntjak193. 26.4
9 Muntiacus_reevesi159. 23.4
10 Muntiacus_truongsonensis 184. 27.7
11 Muntiacus_vaginalis 203. 28.6
12 Hydropotes_inermis 162. 48.5
13 Hyemoschus_aquaticus 122. 20.1
14 Elaphodus_cephalophus186. 17.3
And the following nexus tree:
#NEXUS
[R-package APE, Mon Jun 08 12:20:01 2020]
BEGIN TAXA;
DIMENSIONS NTAX = 12;
TAXLABELS
Tragulus_napu
Tragulus_kanchil
Tragulus_javanicus
Hyemoschus_aquaticus
Moschiola_meminna
Muntiacus_reevesi
Muntiacus_muntjak
Muntiacus_truongsonensis
Elaphodus_cephalophus
Hydropotes_inermis
Moschus_moschiferus
Moschus_berezovskii
;
END;
BEGIN TREES;
TRANSLATE
1Tragulus_napu,
2Tragulus_kanchil,
3Tragulus_javanicus,
4Hyemoschus_aquaticus,
5Moschiola_meminna,
6Muntiacus_reevesi,
7Muntiacus_muntjak,
8Muntiacus_truongsonensis,
9Elaphodus_cephalophus,
10 Hydropotes_inermis,
11 Moschus_moschiferus,
12 Moschus_berezovskii
;
TREE * UNTITLED = []
1:5.540957781,(2:2.978817423,3:2.978817423):2.562139698):10.78911152,4:16.33006601):6.360692368,5:22.69076035):5.725388419,(6:1.611149584,7:1.611149848):1.556474893,8:3.167624477):4.130280196,9:7.297904013):1.497063399,10:8.794967413):7.19682079,(11:2.539095678,12:2.539096008):13.45269085):12.42436025);
Dr. Ted Stankowich
Associate Professor
Department of Biological Sciences
California State University Long Beach
Long Beach, CA 90840
theodore.stankow...@csulb.edu
562-985-4826
http://www.csulb.edu/mammal-lab/
@CSULBMammalLab
Dr. Ted Stankowich
Associate Professor
Department of Biological Sciences
California State University Long Beach
Long Beach, CA 90840
theodore.stankow...@csulb.edu
562-985-4826
http://www.csulb.edu/mammal-lab/
@CSULBMammalLab
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
___
R-sig-phylo mailing list - R-sig-phylo@r-project.org
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-phylo
Searchable archive at http://www.mail-archive.com/r-sig-phylo@r-project.org/
