deletions | additions       diff --git a/Phylogenetic networks.tex b/Phylogenetic networks.tex  index 773c3d2..20b064d 100644  --- a/Phylogenetic networks.tex  +++ b/Phylogenetic networks.tex 
...
It is important to note this distinction, since abstract networks (also called "data visualization graphs") do not always take into account the evolutionary constraints, therefore making them ill suited for the study of biological phenomena, but still can provide some insight by displaying the data in a differently meaningful way.  Another distinction (that also applies for phylogenetic trees) is whether the network is rooted or unrooted.   A rooted tree is a connected and directed acyclic graph where the root of the tree relates to the most ancient common ancestor of the represented species, whereas the unrooted tree only explains how species are related to each other. Networks have been extensively used to model unrooted trees, espacially Neightbor-net, consensus split networks and median-joining. When it comes to rooted trees, those algorithm are ill-suited because of the add biological constraints, not to mention that they are seldom completely defined and optimized, thus not usable as tools at large scales.  There are other means of classifying networks, depending on reconstruction data : from sequences, clusters, distances, trees or splits.