Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!uunet!bionet!GENETICS.WASHINGTON.EDU!joe
From: joe@GENETICS.WASHINGTON.EDU (Joe Felsenstein)
Newsgroups: bionet.population-bio
Subject: Re: phylogenetic autocorrelation
Message-ID: <9005301729.AA28891@evolution.genetics.washington.edu>
Date: 30 May 90 17:29:31 GMT
References: <9005301708.AA01812@arsun.utah.edu>
Sender: daemon@genbank.BIO.NET
Lines: 24


Alan Rogers writes:
> 
> I share Felsenstein's skepticism about the method, but that skepticism does
> not seem to be supported by the simulations I have been doing.  Cheverud,
> Dow, and Leutenegger do argue that all the information will be in the
> specific component, and none in the phylogenetic component.  I didn't believe
> this either, but the results are as they claim.  Here is a plot of the
> estimated phylogenetic correlation against the true value:

I don't get it -- your plot is pure noise, so what does it prove?  I think
maybe it is a plot of residuals or something.  You must have meant something
by it that wasn't explained.

As for your statement that "I didn't believe this either but the results are
as they claim,"  Well, I STILL don't believe that all of the information is
in the specific component.  Successful estimation of rho from that component
does not prove that it has all the information, just that it has some.

-----
Joe Felsenstein, Dept. of Genetics, Univ. of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195
 Internet/ARPANet: joe@genetics.washington.edu     (IP No. 128.208.128.1)
 BITNET/EARN:      FELSENST@UWALOCKE
 UUCP:             ... uw-beaver!uw-entropy!uw-evolution!joe