User talk:Felsenst

220:

You will find lots of people who say cladistics is simply inferring phylogenies by using neatly nested synapomorphies. If pressed they might later admit that it isn't quite that simple (homoplasy happens, and we don't usually know which state is ancestral). The classification is described as a phylogeny and vice versa. I think this is disastrous. It is not unique to Knowledge, but this mess is common everywhere. BTW phenetics is not restricted to morphology. It is either (according to me) classification on the basis of overall similarity (not phylogeny) or (according to the majority of everyone else) a method of inferring phylogenies by using distance matrix methods -- and about half the time they include maximum likelihood as phenetic, and half the time not. (AARGH!) It's a total muddle reflecting muddled thinking. Phenetics is polythetic, but then phylogenetics is too if there is a reasonable amount of homoplasy. In saying cladistics isn't they are implicitly assuming that there is little homoplasy. They are using the Walt Disney version of cladistics, as people usually do in their teaching. You can make up data sets where not one derived state avoids homoplasy.

455:

populations, yes, I get misclassification rates of 0.3, 0.3, 0.216, and 0.216 for 1, 2, 3 and 4 loci. If that is what Edwards does his figure is simply wrong, and you are right. I think he may have used a normal approximation. You might email him and ask. Note, however that a more sophisticated method would have assign each individual a probability of being in each population. In fact the odds favoring it being in population 1 would be multiplied by 7/3 for each + in its genome, and by 3/7 for each -. I haven't yet tried to see what that does to misclassification rates but it is the Bayesian solution under a prior that has equal probabilities of being in each population.

267:, meaning it will no longer be considered one of Knowledge's best articles if it does not get some substantial improvement. The article as it stands is frankly quite poor, and is neither comprehensive nor well-written, suffering in particular from muddled terminology. A few of us who contribute regularly to biology-related articles were asked to do some work on it a couple of weeks ago, but the subject is really outside my field, and it needs the attention of an expert. If you get a chance, anything you can contribute - either editing the article itself or offering suggestions for improvement - would be appreciated. 387:

when the number of loci is increased, but when I produced a similar graph it looked quite different to his, for example I don't get any better resolution with two loci than I do with a single locus, and four loci is no more discriminatory than three. There must be some flaw with my understanding here. I'd appreciate your input if you have the time, though of course I understand if you can't find the time. Thanks for any help in advance. My attempt to correct my initial errors is

278:

essentially all real cases. (In reality this is the Mickey Mouse view, and real life does not afford us knowledge about ancestral states or give us sets of uncontradicted characters). The article goes on to equate this analysis with "phylogenetic systematics" but then later equates it with "cladistic taxonomy". I always thought that phylogenetic systematics was the construction of a monophyletic taxonomy, but the article separates the two. The article has many problems:

1335: 1245: 1170: 1097: 988: 912: 1393: 164:

Yes, that is a photo taken in 2005 by my wife in our backyard. I own it. I can if needed supply a higher-resolution version. However although I am happy to release it under the GFDL, I have no idea how to do so and cannot devote the hours needed to persuade the avid photo-deleters at the Knowledge

68:

Joe-- You can get the old Sewall Wright page edits if you know the IP address from which you made the edits. Go to the User Contributions for that IP, and there will be a list of your edits. Click on the Sewall G. Wright edits, and you'll have access to the text as it existed at that time. You can

386:

Hi Felsenst, I've had a go at correcting the errors in the infobox in my sandbox. I still think there's a problem with my understanding though. I wonder if you could take a look and see if you can spot my mistake. In Edwards' paper he has a graph showing how the chance of misclassification decreases

332:

No homoplasy in practice is an extreme view, of course. But the simple description of "cladistics" as involving nesting homoplasies is a practice that can only really work if there is no homoplasy in practice (and if we do know which states are ancestral). So the standard description of cladistics

129:

Yes, changing the title was wicked of me, but effective -- the image is gone now. It was definitely his father, not him. The pipe-smoking image on the infobox that was recently there and is now on the talk page is an excellent one, and I hope that it becomes the image on the main page. I am glad

485:

Never mind. I just calculated misclassification probabilities under the "Bayesian" scheme. They do decline smoothly as the number of loci increases -- but counting mislassified fractions of individuals, it actually gives a higher probability of misclassification! I was able to verify that in the

1478:

and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion

300:

The reason I just don't sail in and edit it to correct these problems is that the formulation in the article does fairly reflect the dominant-consensus view. In short, that view is badly muddled. This can be seen in many textbooks, whose elementary introductions to modern systematics are a total

219:

I am busy with other (non-Knowledge) work right now -- in any case the whole miasma surrounding "cladistics" makes it difficult to even start. Is cladistics a method of classification? Or a method of inferring phylogenies? I think the former, but a lot of systematists disagree with me on that.

524:

information. I want to make this box so people can come here and see how it's done, so I want to make the explanation as transparent as possible. My thinking is that we have the infobox as it is for articles that discuss these issues, but that the Lewontin's Fallacy article might be better served

439:

Thanks, yes I classify half the probability for +- etc. If Edwards misclassification rates are for diploid organisms then it would explain the difference. But I thought he'd said in his paper that his graph referred to his first example, which I think he says is for a haploid population. I really

314:

Thanks for your comments. This is why I haven't edited the article - I can't reliably distinguish between "rather controversial" and "considered borderline crackpot" :) If the reason the article seems muddled to me is due to the field itself and not to my inadequate understanding of it, then I'll

174:

I think you've just uttered the magic words! Your verbatim response (as above) will be captured and saved by the Wikipedians in their archives as evidence of your consent. Let me know if that's the wording you'd like to use. It might be better not to say anything about the photo-deleters. I'll

406:

What is the rule you use for classification in the two-locus case? When a haplotype has a mixed signal (+-) what do you do? Do you (I hope) assign the individual half to each population, and count that as half a misclassification, instead of as a misclassification? I think this will cause the

360:

article. I was just wondering if you could give me a source to this paper or any other early work by Barricelli, I can only find one pay for article on the net... I'd be interested in reading these papers, I just finished my undergrad dissertation adding in a symbiogenetic operator to a Genetic

454:

You're right, Edwards's example is haploid. He says classification in his example is "simply on the basis of counting the number of + genes" but he does not say what the criterion is. If you use whether the majority of the loci do or do not have +, and divide the ties equally between the two

277:

I don't think I can be of much help. My own view on all this is considered borderline-crackpot, and editing it to reflect my views would make it conflict with most researchers' views. The article assumes that "cladistics" is the use of nested synapomorphies, and that this is practical in

1109:

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

712:

Being a renown computer scientist, this fellow computer science/business undergraduate asks you your advice. Which major would you recommend? I love to travel and work with computers. Is there anything you can recommend me? And sorry for posting such a random question. Have a good day!

407:

misclassications to be fewer when there are 2 loci than 1, and fewer when there are 4 loci than 3. Also I think Edwards's calculation is for diploids, so we do not expect the two calculations to be the same -- his should be close to what you would get with twice the number of loci.

1182:

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

1058:

Hi! I have no idea why you think I did anything to Sewall Wright! Do you know how to check the Revision history? If not, ask at the teahouse. Also, if you want to discuss something with another editor, you really should do it on their talk page, not their userpage.

1359:

until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

1000:

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

924:

775:

Hi, Una. Go right ahead, I am not in charge of that page, I just intervened when it became a mess with wrong formulas and irrelevant stuff cluttering up what could have been a simple explanation. I have not even looked at

577:

Perhaps they could. I met Jayakar years ago, and he did some nice work. But in his case and Spurway's, I know too little about the rest of their achievements to do these updates, and I don't have time to work on this.

486:

counting-plus-alleles method you get the same misclassification probability for an even number of loci as for the next smallest number. Thus the misclassification probability for 10 loci is the same as for 9, etc.

1363:

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

867:. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose 145:? It seems to me that it could be used in Knowledge's article Joe_Felsenstein. Do you have the power to release it? Knowledge is fussy about copyrights. If not, do you have a picture that you took yourself? 1288: 1210: 1137: 1028: 952: 1272:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 1194:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 1121:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 1012:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 936:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 1356: 631:

you gave) that you can download the entire list of publications. It is only about one megabyte. Using an editor to search for keywords you can do about as well as if you owned a print copy.

210:) whereas cladistics is not. My belief was that phenetics differed in that it was strictly based on morphology. The word phyletic is nowhere used. Is it synonymous with phylogenetic. cheers 525:

with additional information about how sorting is achieved. I'll have a go at explaining Edward's second example, and I'll run it by you before I add it to the article if that's OK? Cheers.

1258: 354:

Barricelli, Nils Aall (1963), Numerical testing of evolution theories. Part II. Preliminary tests of performance, symbiogenesis and terrestrial life, Acta Biotheoretica, 16: 99-126.

293:

Then mentioning other methods such as maximum likelihood for inferring phylogenies (but never having made clear what is the connection between phylogenies and cladograms, if any).

425:

Oh wait, I see. Yes, you get no better misclassification with two loci, you are right. I think the simple rule being used for classifying is at fault. Let me look into this.

756:, as a notable application for those who read about LD and wonder "so what?" I think it would be better as a section in the article, with a precis in the lead. I also noticed 610: 520:

OK, thanks a lot. I'm considering trying to include something like Edwards' second example in the article, as this shows how individuals are sorted into groups without

148:

The page that is used to describe 'requests for permission' is at WP:ERP. Essentially the picture would have to be released under the Gnu Free Documentation License.

63:

Kind of wish the stuff in the old Sewall Wright page was accessible now (it has vanished) as I thought it read better. (Of course I wrote some of it). Joe Felsenstein

805: 333:

blatantly violates reality. Which is my point -- the standard textbook descriptions are a mess, and the article faithfully reflects that mess in its mess.

1346: 1382: 674: 1449:

redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

1310: 1224: 1151: 1042: 892: 816:

are one and the same. Would be grateful if you gave your opinion here or at the discussion or even privately on my email if you so prefer.

25: 1483:. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the 592:

Understand, no problem. I figured you might know, having browsed through your bibliography of theoret. pop. genetics many years ago.

120:

Dear Professor Felsenstein, if that image is not of him but of his father, you should perhaps suggest its removal on the talk page.

1306: 1220: 1147: 1038: 888: 780:. The example you use of Finnish diseases seems to be to be an example of among-population LD: are the two diseases in LD 202:

Dear Professor, I hope you get working on the cladistics and related articles soon. The article suggests that phenetics is

1494: 1402: 1281: 1203: 1130: 1021: 945: 33: 17: 879:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to

1293: 1215: 1142: 1033: 957: 884: 1480: 1475: 1418: 1386: 1341: 1325: 1350: 37: 1436: 1409: 749: 1490: 1064: 1435:

disambiguates only one extant Knowledge page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a

753: 82:

page on 4 January, 2006 helped out by restoring the old one at my request. You can see a copy of it here:

45: 1269: 1191: 1118: 1009: 933: 388: 316: 268: 21: 107: 880: 765: 718: 371:

I have found Matt's email address and replied to him privately about how he can get this article.

151:

If you reply that it's OK, I'll try to upload the picture and include it in the article. Thanks,

1372: 1074:

Apologies. I somehow misinterpreted an edit made by another editor as having been made by you.

1060: 813: 287:

Leaving the impression that we know ancestral states, and that there is no homoplasy in practice.

203: 361:

Algorithm, so it would be really nice to see what was done 44 years ago :) Thanks for editing!

1252: 1178: 1105: 996: 978: 966: 920: 902: 856: 847: 650: 618: 597: 567: 357: 29: 1464: 1446: 1300: 1265: 1187: 1114: 1005: 929: 876: 860: 836: 821: 682: 530: 445: 396: 1280:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 1202:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 1129:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 1020:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 944:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 875:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 130:

that he is once again listed as British rather than Scottish, as that is more accurate. ]

777: 757: 189: 185: 176: 152: 103: 86: 49: 315:

keep my proboscis out of it. ('No homoplasy in practice' is really a 'consensus' view?)

1277: 1199: 1126: 1017: 941: 872: 864: 761: 714: 555: 362: 142: 41: 1460: 1422: 1368: 1273: 1195: 1122: 1075: 1013: 937: 868: 785: 729: 693: 692:

I don't have time, and am not familiar enough with Knowledge's standards to comment.

632: 579: 559: 487: 456: 426: 408: 372: 334: 302: 301:

mess. It would be highly controversial of me to resolve the muddle in the article.

264: 249: 221: 166: 79: 56: 673:

Hi, I'd really appreciate your opinion as a scientist, regarding the reliability of

962: 646: 614: 593: 563: 260: 235: 211: 121: 1244: 1169: 1096: 987: 911: 281:

Getting confused over what is classification and what is inference of phylogenies.

1479:

tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with

1421:

requesting that it be speedily deleted from Knowledge. This has been done under

832: 817: 678: 526: 441: 392: 70: 188:

article. The GFDL image is at Image:Felsenstein.jpg in commons.wikimedia.org.

609:

that only 500 copies were ever printed ! The one I got my hands on was at the

256: 245: 809: 606: 69:

then cut and paste from there into the current article. Cheers, Greg Mayer.

628: 1401:

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read

141:

Do you know the copyright status of the picture of you that is posted at

1284:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

1206:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

1133:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

1024:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

948:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

1262:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

1498: 1470:

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may

1442:

disambiguates zero extant Knowledge pages, regardless of its title; or

1376: 1314: 1228: 1155: 1083: 1068: 1046: 970: 896: 840: 825: 793: 769: 737: 722: 701: 686: 654: 640: 622: 601: 587: 571: 534: 495: 464: 449: 434: 416: 400: 375: 365: 337: 319: 305: 271: 238: 224: 214: 192: 179: 169: 155: 124: 110: 89: 73: 290:

Then adding in parsimony as if it was the same thing, which it isn't

102:

Hi Joe, you need to sign your posts with four tildes please ~~~~ —

40:. If you have any other questions about the project then check out 863:

is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Knowledge

284:

Making it sound as if nesting synapomorphies is the usual method

1297:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 1287:

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review

1209:

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review

1136:

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review

1027:

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review

951:

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review

1357:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Weldon Prize (disambiguation)

234:

journal would have a definition and scope defined somewhere.

1485: 1391: 1465:

see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information

645::) A bit late, unfortunately. Not in that field now... ! 1256:

is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All

1339:

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

1268: