When are random data not random, or is the PTP test useful?

Cladistics

Volumn 16, Issue 4, 2000, Pages 420-424

  Peres Neto, Pedro R ^a   Marques, Fernando ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLADISTICS; PHYLOGENY;

EID: 0034464434     PISSN: 07483007     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1006/clad.2000.0140     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. The role of permutation tail probability tests in phylogenetic systematics
2. PTP is meaningless, T-PTP is contradictory: A reply to Trueman
3. Could a cladogram this short have arisen by chance alone? On permutation tests for cladistic structure
4. Probability, parsimony, and Popper
5. When the topology-dependent permutation tests (T-PTP) for monophyly returns significant support for monophyly, should that be equated with (a) rejecting a null hypothesis of nonmonophyly, (b) rejecting a null hypothesis of "no structure," (c) failing to falsify a hypothesis of monophyly, or (d) none of the above?
6. Permutations
7. Discriminating and locating character covariance: An application of permutation tail probability (PTP) analysis
8. An empirical test of bootstraping as a method for assessing confidence in phylogenetic analysis
9. Skewness and permutation
10. How many statistical tests are too many? The problem of conducting multiple ecological inferences revisited
11. Is the PTP test useful?
12. The topology-dependent permutation test for monophyly does not test monophyly