Joe Felsenstein (joe at evolution.genetics.washington.edu) wrote:
: In article <adamsD71Moq.Gr1 at netcom.com>, Ed Adams <adams at netcom.com> wrote:
: >Ed Adams (adams at netcom.com) wrote:
: (In response to Warren Frank Lamboy (wfl1 at cornell.edu) )
: >My previous post, giving a long-winded algorithm, was sloppy. Here
: >is a more refined, simpler, shorter-winded approach. It sounds like
: >what I think Joe Felsenstein was suggesting, although merely flipping
: >around isn't enough.
: > COMPARING NEW HAMPSHIRE UNROOTED TREES
: > with UNIQUE leaves
: >Here's a strategy, followed by an algorithm:
: I hesitate to dispute with the originator of the well-known Adams Consensus
: Tree himself, but ... my algorithm was for rooted trees. For unrooted
: trees, though, couldn't you just root them on the branch to the alphabetically
: first tip (leaf)? Then they would be uniquely rooted and one could use my
: algorithm of "flipping around" and it would be enough?
: Admittedly that is assuming there _is_ a branch leading to the first
: tip. And that rerooting is an easy operation.
: Joe Felsenstein, Dept. of Genetics, Univ. of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195
: Internet: joe at genetics.washington.edu (IP No. 22.214.171.124)
I apologize for my myopia. I agree with both your rooted and unrooted
I didn't hesitate to dispute (only slightly, I felt) with your post, I
wouldn't expect you to hesitate to displute with mine.
As I try to imagine rerooting programmatically, I see that it's a bit of
a hassle. Still, I agree that's the way to go.