[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Herrerasaurus - a sauropodomorph, really?



 BTW, "cladistics" generally refers to methodologies for generating
 cladograms (i.e., discovering clades). What we were discussing is
 more properly termed "phylogenetic nomenclature". (Admittedly, it  is
 sometimes called "cladistic nomenclature", but "phylogenetic"
 captures the whole approach better, as it can involve taxa other than
 clades.)

Cladistics and phylogenetic nomenclature are completely independent of each other. You can have one without the other. Combining them is easy (PN needs phylogenetic hypotheses to be applied to, and cladistics provides well-tested ones; cladistics provides detailed trees, and PN is an easy way to name their branches), but not necessary in theory or practice.

Someone apparently afflicted with the Dunning-Kruger effect has introduced prominent mentions of cladistics (and even "cladism", a term that appears to have been deliberately coined to make a method look like an ideology) into the Wikipedia article on PN. I'll have to fix that.