This is related to the question How to make a connection in a tree with a dashed line?. Therein, it is asked how one can make one connection between a parent node and a child dashed.
The final solution proposed is along the line of alternating the edge from parent[solid] and edge from parent[dashed], which is not only ugly, but also incomplete: when drawing nodes at each child, the node inherits (albeit in a weird fashion) the dashed or solid property of the edge from parent.
Let's start with a common preamble:
\documentclass{standalone}
\usepackage{pgfplots}
\usetikzlibrary{trees}
\def\es{edge from parent[solid]}
\def\ed{edge from parent[dashed]}
\begin{document}
\begin{tikzpicture}[every node/.style={draw},level/.style={sibling distance=20mm/#1}]
Now let's start with what is natural to write.
\node {}
child{
node {}
child{
node {}
child{
node {}
child{node{}}
child}
child{node{}}}
child
child{
child}
\ed}
child {child[missing] child{child} child {child{child child} child}};
this outputs:

This was the original problem called for in the aforementioned question.
The proposed solution, adding \es every other places, resuts in:
\node {}
child{
node {}
child{
node {}
child{
node {}
child{node{}}
child}
child{node{}}
\es}
child{\es}
child{
child
\es}
\ed}
child {child[missing] child{child} child {child{child child} child}};
which is displayed as:

has two serious problems: the redundancy, and the fact that a node appears dashed.
Finally, after many attempts, I came up with the following solution:
\node {}
child{
node {}
child{
node {}
child{
node {}
child{node{}}
child}
child{node{}}}
child
child{
child};
\path \ed;}
child {child[missing] child{child} child {child{child child} child}}
which nicely displays as:

Question: Why? Why do I need a \path? Why doesn't it work with just \ed?
Thanks!
