Re: The validity of cladograms (was Re: giant birds)

[Stanley Friesen <sarima@ix.netcom.com>]

At 04:50 PM 11/14/99 -0600, chris brochu wrote:
>You seem to be saying that because we can't (yet) achieve perfect
>resolution in our phylogenetic summaries, something is seriously wrong. 
>...  This is why I thought Paul Sereno's
>method for summarizing different theropod hypotheses, in which he
>constructed a strict consensus of different trees, was not appropriate -
>his tree was very poorly resolved, but in fact there are less sensative
>consensus methods available that would preserve the resolution found in
>common with most published analyses.

Quite so.  This is why I prefer majority consensus, or some similar method.
>
>And without the phylogenetic analyses we presently have, our capacity to
>say anything about relationships would be much diminished.  We may not
>be able to say everything, but we can certainly say more than nothing.  

I certainly have found recent phylogenetic analyses very useful.

--------------
May the peace of God be with you.         sarima@ix.netcom.com