Dear all, I am studying bite curve shapes of 650 insect species. The bite curve graphs are described by polynomial models with six degrees, of which I can get 100 graph point coordinates using the function predict(). Currently, I have two main questions regarding phylogenetic signal in that data:
1) Can I test for phylogenetic signal given the high non-independence of consecutive graph points? I see two possible inputs for the geomorph::physignal() function, of which the latter seems to be more problematic in that regard: I could use the six polynomials + intercept per species, or the 100 predicted coordinates per species. The difference, however, seems marginal: *data p Kmult iterations* polynomials 0.0001 0.105 10000 predicetd values 0.0001 0.113 10000 If you have an opinion on this, I would be very glad to hear about it. 2) As you can see, while being statistically significant, the Kmult-values are very low, indicating that species are less similar to each other than with a Brownian trait evolution. However, the Kmult-signal itself is in such a low range that some authors have decided to not take phylogeny into account (phylogenetic 'correction') in their own subsequent analyses. Should I correct for phylogeny or not? And again: would the polynomials instead of the predicted coordinates be a better choice for running phylogenetically informed analyses, or is such kind of data not suited to be phylogenetically corrected at all? Best regards and many thanks in advance, Peter -- Peter T. Rühr Bonn Institute of Organismic Biology (BIOB) Section Biodiversity of Animals University of Bonn An der Immenburg 1 53121 Bonn, Germany Phone: +49 (0) 228 73 5115 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Morphmet" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/morphmet2/485d9c02-c088-477a-ab38-863316d19708n%40googlegroups.com.
