RE: a closer look at Hanson 2006

[Michael Mortimer <mickey_mortimer111@msn.com>]

David Peters wrote-

> Above I have listed many 'bumps' in your 'blend'. If your results  produce 
> a hundredth of 34,000+, then your results produced 340 trees.  Right? 
> That's still too many, and more than one, which is the number  you are 
> competing against.

A comment regarding an impression I get from you, David- the number of most 
parsimonious trees found by PAUP is not indicative of the accuracy of the 
results.  A large number of most parsimonious trees merely means the 
analysis lacks the characters needed to place several taxa unambiguously.  
It's possible to make a single MPT that's grossly inaccurate due to not 
including conflicting characters, not ordering characters, ignoring 
ontogeny, etc.

Mickey Mortimer