  Historical linguistics aims at inferring the most likely language
phylogenetic tree starting from information concerning the evolutionary
relatedness of languages. The available information are typically lists of
homologous (lexical, phonological, syntactic) features or characters for many
different languages.
  From this perspective the reconstruction of language trees is an example of
inverse problems: starting from present, incomplete and often noisy,
information, one aims at inferring the most likely past evolutionary history. A
fundamental issue in inverse problems is the evaluation of the inference made.
A standard way of dealing with this question is to generate data with
artificial models in order to have full access to the evolutionary process one
is going to infer. This procedure presents an intrinsic limitation: when
dealing with real data sets, one typically does not know which model of
evolution is the most suitable for them. A possible way out is to compare
algorithmic inference with expert classifications. This is the point of view we
take here by conducting a thorough survey of the accuracy of reconstruction
methods as compared with the Ethnologue expert classifications. We focus in
particular on state-of-the-art distance-based methods for phylogeny
reconstruction using worldwide linguistic databases.
  In order to assess the accuracy of the inferred trees we introduce and
characterize two generalizations of standard definitions of distances between
trees. Based on these scores we quantify the relative performances of the
distance-based algorithms considered. Further we quantify how the completeness
and the coverage of the available databases affect the accuracy of the
reconstruction. Finally we draw some conclusions about where the accuracy of
the reconstructions in historical linguistics stands and about the leading
directions to improve it.
