Talk:Phylogenetic comparative methods

Evolutionary biology Start‑class High‑importance

	Evolutionary biology portal This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, and evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biologyWikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyTemplate:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biology
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:WikiProject Computational Biology

Article quality and name

This article does not appear to really be about anything, certainly not a coherent and unified group of methods that deserve their own central overview. The bulk of the article is given to lists, which are not really encyclopedic or relevant; and there is already a list of computational phylogenetics software article that the software links could link to. What little actual content is in this article is more about phylogenetics than anything else, though how a quote from Aristotle relates to 'controversy' is beyond me. If this article is to remain, it needs the lists chopped and the text dramatically expanded to reflect a consistent body of work on a coherent subject. Opabinia regalis 02:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - I was hoping to find an actual discussion of various phylogenetic comparative methods, but instead found something pretty vague. If nothing else, I'd suggest moving this to comparative phylogenetics, or something... — flamingspinach | (talk) 08:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That seems the best name, and gets the most google hits, so I've moved it here. Richard001 23:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The term "morphospace" is ambiguous at best, it seems that if a term needs quotation marks it should be either, 1) a direct cited quote, or 2) a sort of slang term, to which it should then be linked. If not in general, especially in this case. -----Tobias