Hello,

The library picante in R implements Blomberg et al (2003) K estimate, Liam's 
phytools package does as well. Phytools has the added advantage, if I remember 
correctly, of allowing users to estimate K including within species variation.

Cheers

Alejandro


On 25, Apr 2012, at 5:29 PM, Theodore Garland Jr wrote:

> I would suggest the randomization test in Blomberg et al. (2003).  This will 
> give a valid significance test of the null hypothesis of no phylogenetic 
> signal.  By itself, it does not give a measure of the strength (or amount) of 
> phylogenetic signal.  Not sure if it is implented in r.  If not, I can send 
> our Matlab code.
> 
> Cheers,
> Ted
> 
> Theodore Garland, Jr.
> Professor
> Department of Biology
> University of California, Riverside
> Riverside, CA 92521
> Office Phone:  (951) 827-3524
> Home Phone:  (951) 328-0820
> Facsimile:  (951) 827-4286 = Dept. office (not confidential)
> Email:  [email protected]
> http://www.biology.ucr.edu/people/faculty/Garland.html
> 
> Experimental Evolution: Concepts, Methods, and Applications of Selection 
> Experiments. 2009.
> Edited by Theodore Garland, Jr. and Michael R. Rose
> http://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520261808
> (PDFs of chapters are available from me or from the individual authors)
> 
> ________________________________________
> From: [email protected] [[email protected]] 
> on behalf of Nina Hobbhahn [[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 1:55 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [R-sig-phylo] Normality requirement for assessment of lambda with    
>   phylosig (phytools) and fitContinuous (geiger)
> 
> Dear fellow list users,
> 
> I would like to assess the magnitude of phylogenetic signal in two sets of 
> continuous data. Set 1 contains numerous zeros and is therefore non-normal. 
> Set 2 contains very little variation and is non-normal due to 
> underdispersion. Given that both data sets are largely immune to 
> transformations to normality, I am wondering whether the lambda estimates for 
> untransformed data derived from phylosig and fitContinuous will be 
> meaningful? If not, can you recommend transformations or other methods of 
> phylogenetic-signal assessment that would be preferable?
> 
> Thank you very much,
> 
> Nina
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Nina Hobbhahn
> Post-doctoral fellow
> Lab of Prof. S. D. Johnson
> School of Life Sciences
> University of KwaZulu-Natal
> Private Bag X01
> Scottsville, Pietermaritzburg, 3201
> South Africa
> 
> 
>        [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
> 
> _______________________________________________
> R-sig-phylo mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-phylo
> 
> _______________________________________________
> R-sig-phylo mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-phylo

__________________________________

Alejandro Gonzalez Voyer

Post-doc

Estación Biológica de Doñana
Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC)
Av Américo Vespucio s/n
41092 Sevilla
Spain

Tel: + 34 - 954 466700, ext 1749

E-mail: [email protected]

Web site (Under construction):

Personal page: http://consevol.org/members/alejandro.html

Group page: http://consevol.org/index.html

For PDF copies of papers see:

http://csic.academia.edu/AlejandroGonzalezVoyer



        [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

_______________________________________________
R-sig-phylo mailing list
[email protected]
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-phylo

Reply via email to