[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
>This is an artifact of the process of speciation by cladogenesis. In
>vertebrates certainly, and probably in most animals, species diversify by
>branching apart, not by coming together. So a cladogram will always resemble
>a tree, with more branches at the top than lower down. But the cladogram
>doesn't tell you which branches became extinct and which survived, and it
>doesn't tell you which of the groups of organisms, whose evolution it diagrams,
Then how useful is the procedure? I suppose it would help for a taxonomic
study, but it sounds like it wouldn't be all that useful for ecological and
evolutionary studies. It seems to me that since there is a lot of useful
information left out, that a cladigram should be seen as a starting point,
and not the end in itself.
Did I just reinvent the wheel? Do people already do this?