Resampling measures of group support: a reply to Grant and Kluge.

Grant and Kluge (2003) associated resampling measures of group support with the aim of evaluating statistical stability, confidence, or the probability of recovering a true phylogenetic group. This interpretation is not necessary to methods such as jackknifing or bootstrapping, which are better interpreted as measures of support from the current dataset. Grant and Kluge only accepted the absolute Bremer value as a measure of group support, and considered resampling methods as irrelevant to phylogenetic inference. It is shown that under simple circumstances resampling indices better reflect the degree of support than Bremer values. Grant and Kluge associated the resampling methods (and the use of measures of group support in general) with what they call a "verificationist agenda", where strongly supported groups are first detected, and then protected against additional testing. They propose that identifying weakly supported groups, and then concentrating additional tests on them, will better serve science. Both programs are actually equivalent, and inert as to the selection of methods to estimate group support. The ranking of groups under a range of resampling strength is proposed as an additional criterion to evaluate resampling methods. A reexamination of the slope of symmetric resampling frequency as a function of resampling strength suggest that slopes can be problematic as well as a measure of group support.