PHYLIP was first released in 1980. Here are some people whose participation
has been important:
Distribution of different versions: these people pioneered the
various forms of distribution, but all versions are now distributed by us.
Important contribution of program code
- Hisashi Horino (draw program drivers)
- Sean Lamont (draw program drivers, C conversion, fixing workstations and network)
- Akiko Fuseki (much algorithmic programming and C conversion)
- Dan Fineman (consensus tree program, draw program drivers)
- Patrick Colacurcio (tree reading code)
- Daniel Yek, (algorithmic programming)
- Doug Buxton (completion of 3.6b release)
- Rev. Dr. Lucas Mix (Proml and Promlk)
- Andrew Keeffe (especially interactive tree manipulation programs)
- Mike Palczewski (3.6 release, customization for compilers, GUI, major revision of code base)
- Marissa LaMadrid (testing for bugs)
- Ian Robertson (especially wizard computer configuration)
- Eric Rynes (work on a future codon-model program)
Current programmers are:
(When they're not working on LAMARC)
- Elizabeth Walkup
- Bob Giansiracusa
- Jim McGill
|Years||granting agency|| grant number|
|2011-2013||National Science Foundation||DEB-1019583|
|2011-2012||National Science Foundation||Cooperative
|2005-2009||NIH NIGMS||R01 GM071639|
|1999-2003||National Science Foundation||DEB-9815650|
|1996-1999|| National Science Foundation|| BIR-9527687|
|1992-1995|| National Science Foundation || DEB-9207558|
|1992-1994 || NIH NIGMS Shannon Award || 2 R55 GM41716-04|
|1989-1992 || NIH NIGMS || 1 R01-GM41716-01|
|1990-1992 || National Science Foundation || BSR-8918333|
|1987-1990 || National Science Foundation || BSR-8614807|
|1979-1987 || U.S. Department of Energy || DE-AM06-76RLO2225|
No thanks to
A few thoughts about the above list:
- Does all this “outreach” stuff mean I have to devote time
to giving workshops to mystified culinary arts students? These grants are
for development of advanced methods, and briefing “the public or
non-university educators” about those methods would seem to be a waste
of time -- though
I do spend some effort on fighting creationists and Intelligent Design
advocates, but I don't bring up these methods in doing so.
- Does all this “preliminary examples” stuff mean that we have
to have methods completed before applying for money to develop them?
- Do all the calls for a larger training component or bringing a
paleontologist on board mean that they will look favorably on a 25-50%
expansion of the proposal budget? Who's kidding who?
Hero Medals for standing up for us at considerable personal risk to
Moore, NSF and Wayne State University. In 1990 as head of
the NSF program funding systematics, he actually overruled his
panel, which had recommended that a grant of mine positively
not be funded, and awarded the grant.
- Maureen Kearney, program head of NSF Systematics and Biodoversity.
On the 20th anniversary of Bill Moore's brave action, she did the same.
My thanks to her for sticking out her neck and acting on her convictions.
Thanks for helping us find funds to
Much helpful advice from
Inspiration to keep going came from
- Cladistics magazine, for endless negative reviews and
disparaging comments. If they liked it I'd worry.
(I do note that the Hennig Society page for Cladistics includes a link
for most-cited papers. The list is only of recent papers. My 1989 note in
Cladistics describing PHYLIP, on page 164 of volume 5,
is in fact the most cited paper ever
in that journal, responsible for at least 15% of all citations to
the journal, and making me the most-cited-ever author in that journal!
You'd think they'd like me.)
And many thanks to about 300 users for complaints, suggestions, bug fixes, and
... to the PHYLIP home page