Hi Florian,
 
a different perpsective on the quasi-likelihood debate - that comes out sporadically on this list:
 
(i) I globally agree with the previous repliers that a fully probabilistic solution looks better - at least aesthetically - than a quasi-likelihood;
 
(ii) however, as I have already mentioned on the list (cf. below), earlier versions of lme4 give much more sensible results than the latest versions:
http://markmail.org/message/s4abxhhdacqjkunm
 
This is why in the following papers:
Elek Z., Dauffy-Richard & Gosselin F., 2010, Carabid species responses to hybrid poplar plantation in floodplains in France, Forest Ecology and Management, 260, 9, p. 1446-1455.

and

Vuidot A., Paillet Y., Archaux F. & Gosselin F. (In Press) Influence of tree characteristics and forest management on tree microhabitats in France, Biological Conservation.

we used version the R version 2.5.1 and the associated lme4 version (here with quasi-poisson, not quasi-bionomial).
 
Hope this helps.
 
Sincerely,

Frédéric Gosselin 
Engineer & Researcher (PhD) in Forest Ecology 
Cemagref 
Domaine des Barres 
F-45290 Nogent sur Vernisson 
France 

http://www.cemagref.fr/les-contacts/les-pages-personnelles-professionnelles/gosselin-frederic/english-short-scientific-cv


	[[alternative HTML version deleted]]


