Models of evolution used in phylogenetic reconstruction make specific assumptions which (in their entirety, and globally applied) are ultimately wrong. They are also approximately right. What does this even mean? This week’s reading gets us into the notion of robustness of phylogenetic models to violations of their inherent assumptions. An important piece of the “which method should I use?” puzzle. Let’s see if we can identify other pieces too.
Nguyen, M.A.T., T. Gesell & A. von Haeseler. 2012. ImOSM: Intermittent evolution and robustness of phylogenetic methods. Molecular Biology and Evolution 29: 663-673. Available on-line here.
Undergraduate research student Usmaan Basharat has won an Undergraduate Diversity at Evolution 2014 travel award from NESCent (National Evolutionary Synthesis Center, North Carolina). This award will cover the entire expenses for traveling to and attending the Evolution 2014 meeting, the largest annual meeting in the field of evolutionary biology, systematics and natural history, jointly held by the Society for the Study of Evolution (SSE), the Society of Systematic Biologists (SSB), and the American Society of Naturalists (ASN). Usmaan will be presenting a poster on his research on the biogeography of West Indian entimine weevils.
Congratulations to Usmaan!
Dynamic homology – part 1, part2, and now, for behavioral data (not exclusively, one presumes):
Japyassú, H.F. & F.d.A. Machado. 2010. Coding behavioural data for cladistic analysis: using dynamic homology without parsimony. Cladistics 26: 625-642. Available here.
More on this soon, well, hopefully. At least we are caught up now with our weekly reading posts.