Prior studies involving two methods, Brooks Parsimony Analysis (BPA) and TreeMap, have found BPA to be the more reliable method. Recent criticisms leveled at these studies argue that the tests were unfairly created and biased in favor of BPA. The authors of a recent critique offered new exemplars to demonstrate flaws in BPA, plus a simple fix to correct the flaws found in TreeMap. A re-evaluation of their exemplars clearly shows that the authors' calculations are incorrect, their understanding of the methods is lacking, and that their simple fix does not work. Additional analyses using TreeMap 2.02 are run to show that TreeMap 2.02, like TreeMap 1.0, cannot adequately deal with widespread parasites, contrary to the claims of its supporters. Furthermore, the exemplars corroborate previous findings that BPA, when calculated correctly, is more reliable than TreeMap1.0 and TreeMap 2.02 and therefore the method of choice in coevolutionary and biogeographic studies
There are no comments yet. You can post the first one!
Post a comment
Please log in to use this service. Login as Wageningen University & Research user or guest user in upper right hand corner of this page.