This closes #48. I may have messed up the flow; will definately need a read-through.
I've also added a new supplementary figure based on a different tree sequence from Leo: our previous assertion that Site/Branch hovered around the mutation rate was worrisome, since he thought the mutation rate should be 1.45e-8; this should clear that up and add some more nuance to that section.
This closes #48. I may have messed up the flow; will definately need a read-through.
I've also added a new supplementary figure based on a different tree sequence from Leo: our previous assertion that Site/Branch hovered around the mutation rate was worrisome, since he thought the mutation rate should be 1.45e-8; this should clear that up and add some more nuance to that section.