Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
Boytjie,
If you're into the mind numbing world of parsimony trees and bootstrap analysis this paper could interest you. If you're not, forego the aneurism and just look at the pictures. |
Just looked at that paper. They used successive approximations weighting! My goodness! This has been known for a while to produce problematic results. Even Farris (who invented the procedure) later pointed that out.
1300 bp for 171 OTUs and only 500 variable sites, no surprise they got a number of equally parsimonious resolutions. So they seem to have resolved to numbercrunch the problem out of existence. How about a second marker? COI, 16S, 18S?
Bottom line, I would not necessarily buy the Paphs basal to remainder of higher orchids, and just inside Apostasioids. Never mind the <50% BS support for the node of Cypripedoids to the higher orchids: that's a polytomy (= one can't really tell where it goes)! Even solid circles for 75-100%BS is very generous. Most people would toss anything with BS<85% out as a polytomy. Surprised they did not use decay index/Bremer's, but went for BS.
Linear Mode
