  In this paper, we comment on the recent comparison in Azzalini et al. (2014)
of two different distributions proposed in the literature for the modelling of
data that have asymmetric and possibly long-tailed clusters. They are referred
to as the restricted and unrestricted skew t-distributions by Lee and McLachlan
(2013a). Firstly, we wish to point out that in Lee and McLachlan (2014b), which
preceded this comparison, it is shown how a distribution belonging to the
broader class, the canonical fundamental skew t (CFUST) class, can be fitted
with essentially no additional computational effort than for the unrestricted
distribution. The CFUST class includes the restricted and unrestricted
distributions as special cases. Thus the user now has the option of letting the
data decide as to which model is appropriate for their particular dataset.
Secondly, we wish to identify several statements in the comparison by Azzalini
et al.(2014) that demonstrate a serious misunderstanding of the reporting of
results in Lee and McLachlan (2014a) on the relative performance of these two
skew t-distributions. In particular, there is an apparent misunderstanding of
the nomenclature that has been adopted to distinguish between these two models.
Thirdly, we take the opportunity to report here that we have obtained improved
fits, in some cases a marked improvement, for the unrestricted model for
various cases corresponding to different combinations of the variables in the
two real datasets that were used in Azzalini et al. (2014) to mount their
claims on the relative superiority of the restricted and unrestricted models.
For one case the misclassification rate of our fit under the unrestricted model
is less than one third of their reported error rate. Our results thus reverse
their claims on the ranking of the restricted and unrestricted models in such
cases.
