-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Fwd: TR: [R-sig-phylo] Phylogeny and morphometric data: a
new paradigm?
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 13:17:03 -0400
From: Francisco prevosti <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Hello,
somebody have the abstract of the talk that Felsenstein gave at the
Evolution2009 meeting ?? It is possible to get it?
thanks,
pancho
Francisco J. Prevosti
División Mastozoología
Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales "Bernardino Rivadavia" - CONICET
Av. Angel Gallardo 470 - C1405DJR -
Buenos Aires - Argentina -
Tel/Fax.: (5411) 4982-0306 / 1154 / 5243 / 4494 - Int. 210
http://www.macn.secyt.gov.ar/
--- On *Thu, 11/4/10, morphmet /<[email protected]>/*
wrote:
From: morphmet <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: TR: [R-sig-phylo] Phylogeny and morphometric data: a
new paradigm?
To: "morphmet" <[email protected]>
Date: Thursday, November 4, 2010, 11:12 AM
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: TR: [R-sig-phylo] Phylogeny and morphometric data: a new
paradigm?
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2010 17:42:00 -0400
From: Elsa et Stéphane BOUEE <[email protected]
</mc/[email protected]>>
Reply-To: <[email protected] </mc/[email protected]>>
To: <[email protected]
</mc/[email protected]>>
At the request of mister Felsenstein I transfer his answer to the morph
mailing list
Stéphane
-----Message d'origine-----
De : Joe Felsenstein [mailto:[email protected]
</mc/[email protected]>]
Envoyé : mercredi 3 novembre 2010 20:26
À : Stéphane BOUEE
Cc : [email protected]
</mc/[email protected]>
Objet : Re: [R-sig-phylo] Phylogeny and morphometric data: a new
paradigm?
Stéphane Bouee wrote:
> I receive the mailing list of phylogeny and morphometric
geometry and
> I post the same message to both lists.
I am replying on the R-sig-phylo mailing list -- will you please
forward
this to the other relevant lists?
> This is about doing phylogeny with morphometric geometry, a subject
> that could bring an anathema on me because 1) quantitative data are
> generally considered to be unsuitable for doing phylogeny,
especially
> with a cladistic method, 2) among quantitative data, morphometric
ones
> are considred to be one of the worst.
> Although I understand and agree for the second reason, I never
really
> understood why cladistic could not be performed with quantitative
> data. I understand that there are technical reasons but I think
there
> are other historical reasons such as the long war between
phenetic and
> cladistic, that still bring a doubt on studies doing phylogeny with
quantitative data.
It may depend on who you are talking to. People who consider parsimony
methods the only good ones tend to be very unhappy with quantitative
measurements and consider discrete characters the only valid ones. But
other people, such as statistical phylogeny people who work on
comparative
methods, use continuous scales enthusiastically.
> Let's come to the point, I recently discovered 2 articles that,
to my
> opinion, threw a stone in the pond as we say in French:
> 1. Phylogenetic morphometrics (I): the use of landmark data in a
> phylogenetic framework. Santiago A. Catalano, Pablo A. Goloboff,
Norberto
P.
> Giannini, Cladistics,
>
<http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cla.2010.26.issue-5/issuet
> oc> Volume 26, Issue 5, pages 539?549, October 2010
> 2. Phylogenetic morphometrics (II): algorithms for landmark
> optimization. Santiago A. Catalano, Pablo A. Goloboff, Norberto P.
> Giannini, Cladistics Article first published online: 28 JUN 2010
DOI:
> 10.1111/j.1096-0031.2010.00318.x
This is part of a move away from the discrete-characters-only
position on
the part of the Willi Hennig Society types. Actually in some of the
early
papers by Farris and Kluge (1969, 1970) continuous scales were used in
parsimony methods. Afterwards there was an anathema within the
WHS against them. The miasma is only beginning to clear now.
> Since several years I try to use my morphometric data in a phylogeny
> perspective. I used several methods, including the maximum
likelyhood
> method with Philips software of Mister Felsentein and the cladistic
> method of TNT software of Mister Goloboff, one of the author of
the 2
papers.
You spelled Goloboff's name correctly ...
> I just wanted to express my opinion about this matter and I think
> those 2 papers will bring the pylogeny perspective in a new
paradigm.
The use of morphometric methods together with phylogenies is an
important
area of work. Fred Bookstein and I are working on some methods that may
improve on Goloboff and Catalano's method. For now, their approach,
which makes a Procrustes fit of the forms and then infers ancestral
states
using distances in that space, is not bad ... but we think we can do
better. I talked on this at the Evolution2009 meeting (for 13 minutes,
anyway) and we hope to have more methods available soon.
Obviously I prefer statistically-based methods such as likelihood (or
Bayesian) ones instead of parsimony, but I won't bore people with that.
Joe
----
Joe Felsenstein [email protected]
</mc/[email protected]>
Department of Genome Sciences and Department of Biology, University of
Washington, Box 355065, Seattle, WA 98195-5065 USA
