AbstractSome alternatives to the standard evalb measures for parser evaluation are considered, principally the use of a tree-distance measure, which assigns a score to a linearity and ancestry respecting mapping between trees, in contrast to the evalb measures, which assign a score to a span preserving mapping. Additionally, analysis of the evalb measures suggests some further variants, concerning different normalisations, the portions of a tree compared and whether scores should be micro or macro averaged. The outputs of 6 parsing systems on Section 23 of the Penn Treebank were taken. It is shown that the ranking of the parsing systems varies as the alternative evaluation measures are used. For a fixed parsing system, it is also shown that the ranking of the parses from best to worst will vary according to whether the evalb or tree-distance measure is used. It is argued that the tree-distance measure ameliorates a problem that has been noted concerning over-penalisation of attachment errors.