Mark Siddal writes:
> By dendrograms do you mean:
> a) cladograms ?
> b) phenograms ?
> c) distance trees?
> d) neighbor joining trees?
> Are you interested in:
> a) phylogeny?
> b) population level similarities?
> c) simple genetic similarity?
>> The answer to your question needs to be framed in the contex
Why would Ramon have said "dendrogram" if he meant "cladogram"?
I think that you are inferring a rather narrow suite of likely
reasons one might draw trees!
Long before drawing trees became the rage for molecular biologists
with lots of DNA and protein sequences there was....
Once upon a time there was a field of endeavor called "floristics"
or "vegetation analysi"s. A fairly commonly performed exercise was
to perform cluster analysis upon similarity matrices of
species x quadrat, species x transect, species x site, etc.
(Mechanically these matrices are the equivalent of OTU x genetic
distance ones used for NJ trees and cluster analyses such as UMPGA
(yes, there are other kinds of cluster analysis).
Of couse there was also a field called numerical taxonomy, more usually
dispargingly referred to by some misguided individuals as "mere phenetics".
So my point is, people might want to draw trees from all sorts of non-
genetical data. When I read the post, I assumed that Ramon was starting
with some sort of RxQ data matrix which needed graphical representation.
I then wondered if Ramon had any way to read a mag-tape of mid-1970's
vintage and had a fortan compiler.