Monocots without borders. Monocotiledóneas sin fronteras
Jueves 11 de diciembre de 2008
Auditorio UNIRA, Jardín Botánico Francisco Javier Clavijero
Km 2.5 carretera antigua a Coatepec 351, Congregación El Haya, Xalapa, Ver.
Programa
8:30-9:00 Registro y bienvenida
9:00-9:25 Monocots and the AToL initiative (Assembling the Tree of Life). Dennis Stevenson. New York Botanical Garden.
9:30-9:55 Filogenia molecular y evolución estructural en Araceae. Lidia I. Cabrera y Gerardo
A. Salazar. Instituto de Biología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
10:00-10:25 Phylogeny of Cocoseae subtribe Attaleinae (Areceaceae) based on eight WRKY transcription factor loci. Alan Meerow. United States Department of Agriculture.
10:30-10:55 Filogenia de Myrmecophila (Orchidaceae). Germán Carnevali. Centro de Investigación Científica de Yucatán.
11:00 Coffe break
11:30-11:55 Morphological convergence in Tigridieae (Iridaceae). Aarón Rodríguez. CUCBA, Universidad de Guadalajara
12:00-12:25 Relaciones filogenéticas en Agavaceae s.str., inferidas de ADN nuclear, cloroplasto
y morfología. Gerardo A. Salazar, Abisaí García y Eloy Solano. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
12:30-12:55 Phylogeny and biogeography of Allium. Chelsea Specht. University of California,
Berkeley.
13:00 Lunch
14:30-14:55 The Milla clade (Themidaceae): Behria and Bessera circumscription. Etelvina Gándara and Victoria Sosa. Instituto de Ecología A. C.
15:00-15:25 Systematics and ecological reconstruction for Central American Aechmea (Bromeliaceae). Chodon Sass and Chelsea Specht. University of California, Berkeley.
15:30-15:55 Ecology, molecules and morphological variation in Otatea (Bambusoideae: Poaceae). How many species are there? Eduardo Ruiz-Sanchez and Victoria Sosa. Instituto de Ecología A. C.
16:00 Coffe break
16:30-16:55 Phylogeny of Muhlenbergia and relatives ( Chloridoideae: Poaceae). Travis Columbus. Rancho Santa Ana Botanical Garden.
17:00-17:25 Phylogeny and a new classification of the Panicoideae-Centothecoideae clade (Poaceae). Jorge Gabriel Sánchez-Ken. Instituto de Biología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
17:30-17:45 Una síntesis de las monocotiledóneas Mexicanas. Adolfo Espejo. Sociedad Botánica de México. Universidad y Autónoma Metropolitana, Iztapalapa.
17:45 Poster session
1 de diciembre de 2008
28 de noviembre de 2008
X Congreso Latinoamericano de Botánica. CHILE
El X Congreso Latinoamericano de Botánica
"Conservación y uso sustentable de la flora nativa latinoamericana"
se realizará en
la Ciudad de La Serena (Chile),
los días 4 al 10 de octubre de 2010.
PAG WEB
"Conservación y uso sustentable de la flora nativa latinoamericana"
se realizará en
la Ciudad de La Serena (Chile),
los días 4 al 10 de octubre de 2010.
PAG WEB
Circulares Informativas / Convocatorias
1º Convocatoria Octubre 2008
24 de noviembre de 2008
La popularidad de los analisis de clados anidados
Wiley InterScience :: JOURNALS :: Evolution
WHY DOES A METHOD THAT FAILS CONTINUE TO BE USED?
L. Lacey Knowles 1,2
1 Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109 2 E-mail: knowlesl@umich.edu
Associate Editor: M. Rausher
Copyright Journal compilation © 2008 The Society for the Study of Evolution
KEYWORDS
Biogeography • demographic history • historical inference • nested-clade analysis • phylogeography
ABSTRACT
As a critical framework for addressing a diversity of evolutionary and ecological questions, any method that provides accurate and detailed phylogeographic inference would be embraced. What is difficult to understand is the continued use of a method that not only fails, but also has never been shown to work—nested clade analysis is applied widely even though the conditions under which the method will provide reliable results have not yet been demonstrated. This contradiction between performance and popularity is even more perplexing given the recent methodological and computational advances for making historical inferences, which include estimating population genetic parameters and testing different biogeographic scenarios. Here I briefly review the history of criticisms and rebuttals that focus specifically on the high rate of incorrect phylogeographic inference of nested-clade analysis, with the goal of understanding what drives its unfettered popularity. In this case, the appeal of what nested-clade analysis claims to do—not what the method actually achieves—appears to explain its paradoxical status as a favorite method that fails. What a method promises, as opposed to how it performs, must be considered separately when evaluating whether the method represents a valuable tool for historical inference.
Received July 17, 2008
Accepted July 18, 2008
DIGITAL OBJECT IDENTIFIER (DOI)
10.1111/j.1558-5646.2008.00481.x About DOI
WHY DOES A METHOD THAT FAILS CONTINUE TO BE USED?
L. Lacey Knowles 1,2
1 Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109 2 E-mail: knowlesl@umich.edu
Associate Editor: M. Rausher
Copyright Journal compilation © 2008 The Society for the Study of Evolution
KEYWORDS
Biogeography • demographic history • historical inference • nested-clade analysis • phylogeography
ABSTRACT
As a critical framework for addressing a diversity of evolutionary and ecological questions, any method that provides accurate and detailed phylogeographic inference would be embraced. What is difficult to understand is the continued use of a method that not only fails, but also has never been shown to work—nested clade analysis is applied widely even though the conditions under which the method will provide reliable results have not yet been demonstrated. This contradiction between performance and popularity is even more perplexing given the recent methodological and computational advances for making historical inferences, which include estimating population genetic parameters and testing different biogeographic scenarios. Here I briefly review the history of criticisms and rebuttals that focus specifically on the high rate of incorrect phylogeographic inference of nested-clade analysis, with the goal of understanding what drives its unfettered popularity. In this case, the appeal of what nested-clade analysis claims to do—not what the method actually achieves—appears to explain its paradoxical status as a favorite method that fails. What a method promises, as opposed to how it performs, must be considered separately when evaluating whether the method represents a valuable tool for historical inference.
Received July 17, 2008
Accepted July 18, 2008
DIGITAL OBJECT IDENTIFIER (DOI)
10.1111/j.1558-5646.2008.00481.x About DOI
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)
