RE: New paper on Neoaves

[Michael Mortimer <mickey_mortimer111@msn.com>]

Tim Williams wrote-

> > I suppose I don't get what you're worrying about.  If we have extremely 
> > well (>95%) supported nodes, then we know things are working.
>
> How I wish that were always true.  :-(

I wonder.... how many well supported (>95% Bayesian or bootstrap) molecular 
nodes have later been 'disproven'?  And of the ones that have been, in how 
many cases was it a matter of needing to throw more taxa or bases in the 
analysis?

Mickey Mortimer