This sounded wrong to me, as the OU process should be agnostic to the dataset:
There are no restrictions inherent in the OU process that apply particularly to
phylogenetic data, whether the tree is ultrametric or not. I re-read Slater
2014 and it is clear that you can use branch length
lu, HI 96822
Office: 808-956-4713
Dept: 808-956-8617
Lab: 808-956-5867
FAX: 808-956-4745
http://butlerlab.org
http://manoa.hawaii.edu/biology/people/marguerite-butler
http://www2.hawaii.edu/~mbutler
On Jun 11, 2018, at 7:33 PM, Simone Blomberg
mailto:s.blombe...@uq.edu.au>> wrote:
@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/
--
Simone Blomberg, BSc (Hons), PhD, MAppStat.
Senior Lecturer and Consultant Statistician
School of Biological Sciences
The University of Queensland
St. Lucia Queensl
Searchable archive at http://www.mail-archive.com/r-sig-phylo@r-project.org/
--
Simone Blomberg, BSc (Hons), PhD, MAppStat (she/her)
Senior Lecturer and Consultant Statistician
School of Biological Sciences
The University of Queensland
St. Lucia Queensland 4072
Australia
T: +61 7 3365 2506
email
.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-phylo
Searchable archive at http://www.mail-archive.com/r-sig-phylo@r-project.org/
--
Simone Blomberg, BSc (Hons), PhD, MAppStat (she/her)
Senior Lecturer and Consultant Statistician
School of Biological Sciences
The University of Queensland
St. Lucia Queensland
/. Which is not what
> would be expected if mu were modelling a phylogenetic correction
> factor (if nothing else, the range of mu should probably not span
> zero). So it suggests to me I'm not doing something right. I know that
> PGLS doesn't always result in better fits than OLS, but
eted]]
___
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/
--
Simone Blomberg, BSc (Hons), PhD, MAppStat, AStat.
Senior Lecturer and Consul
