[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: FW: Dracorex's phylogenetic position examined with science
On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 14:03:22 -0500 Tim Williams
> My first thought when I read the paper was
> "Yes, you
> could be right - a cladistic analysis might not tell us anything
> But what would be the harm in doing one anyway?"
But what is the harm in leaving a cladistic analysis *out* of this paper?
Let those who "do" cladistics as their specialty write their papers. But
those who want to opt out of such a pursuit should be allowed to get into
Only those papers that address evolutionary relationships as their *main*
thesis should be required to do cladistic analyses.
Taxonomists/ontologists/histologists/biostratigraphers should be allowed
to opt out of doing a cladistic analysis if they want to.
Just because a paleontologist has a copy of PAUP or MACCLADE loaded onto
their computer's hard drive doesn't necessarily mean that he/she knows
enough to write a paper on the subject.
This is not an indictment of cladistics. I personally think cladistics
is a *revolutionary* step forward in paleontology. Cladistic theory is
one of the major achievements in paleontology in the last century. But
my comment *is* an indictment of "cladogram inflation" caused by
unnecessary publication of character matrices of poorly known taxa.