Re: Experiment - Peshwari cat and Peshwari pig [LONG Post]

From: Jim Menegay (jimmenegay_at_sbcglobal.net)
Date: 07/30/04 

Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 19:58:30 +0000 (UTC)

"Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmenegay@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:<cduleg$2n4f$1@darwin.ediacara.org>...

Correction! Josh, please let this post thru the embargo.

> | Standard | Edserian |
> Cat-egory | Count | Fitness | Count | Fitness |
> ----------|--------|----------|--------|----------|
> HB | 280 | 2.34 | 280 | 2.14 |
> HN | 120 | 2.19 | 120 | 1.99 |
> NB | 120 | 2.39 | 120 | 2.19 |
> NN | 480 | 2.24 | 480 | 2.04 |
> XX | 100 | 0.00 | 0 | N/A |
> ----------|--------|----------|--------|----------|
> All cats | 1100 | 2.082 | 1000 | 2.08 |
> Adults | 1000 | 2.28 | 1000 | 2.08 |
> HB + HN | 400 | 2.295 | 400 | 2.095 |
> NB + NN | 600 | 2.27 | 600 | 2.07 |
> HB + NB | 400 | 2.355 | 400 | 2.155 |
> HN + NN | 600 | 2.23 | 600 | 2.03 |

Bill Hunt writes:
  Unfortunately the 'mean standard fitness for all cats'
  value of 2.082 that you give makes no sense to me. I
  presume it is an error in calculation but I cannot see
  how you arrived at this number. It would help to work
  from the 'raw' data but from my calculations the total
  fitness count is 2280 and 2280/1100 = 2.073. So I will
  use the value 2.073 (replacing your calculated value of
  2.082).

Bill is correct. My 2.082 is a calculation error, and should
be 2.073 as he indicates. I think that my other numbers are
correct, but it won't hurt to be skeptical.

Sorry about that!

Quantcast