Thank you, Matt. I had not seen that paper. The paper you provided gives me the
answer I needed (i.e., which model is more appropriate). Guess I'm going with
pgls.
Thanks again.
--Ashley
From: Matt Pennell [mwpenn...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, October 03,
Hi Ashley,
I think that these two types of analyses are actually asking different
things and therefore the decision of which type of analysis is best should
be made on biological rather than statistical grounds (i.e., no point in
comparing likelihoods or AIC scores). There is a good (albeit, rathe
Hello everyone,
I'm working on analyzing data with both pGLS and pRMA in phytools.
Understandably, the two analyses are providing me with slightly different
regression equations, which I need for a subsequent analysis. I am aware that
the output of the pGLS function includes an AIC score. Howev
Just to clarify, off-list discussion with Graham reveals (after some
confusion on my part) that if the simple format option is used in sumt
in MrBayes, then ape's read.nexus will natively read the posterior
probability values as node-labels. Which is interesting and I had not
come across that infor
Dave,
I�ve had the same trouble with shuffling. However, all of this can be avoided
if you specify the simple format for your .con file in the mrBayes block.
sumt conformat = simple;
The resulting tree will correctly display posterior probabilities in a
phyloformat tree.
Graham
---
Hello all,
Recently, I wanted to display posterior probabilities on a 50%
compatibility tree from a MrBayes run, created with the 'sumt'
command. I looked around for ways to do this and found this email
thread from last year:
https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-sig-phylo/2013-June/002825.html
...wh
