[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: synapsids (was RE: pdf request)
Basically, before Phylip, Hennig86, and PAUP (no "*", just "PAUP"),
cladistic analyses had to be done by hand. For analyses with more
than 6 or 7 operational taxonomic units and a dozen or so characters,
this would be very "computationally" (i.e., pen & paper) time
Hennig, who had plenty of time, did a few such analyses.
After him and well into the 1990s, however, many people misused the
term, came up with a phylogenetic hypothesis, drew a branching diagram
(which they mistakenly called "cladogram") to illustrate it, and showed
where on the tree, according to their hypothesis, a few characters they
were interested in changed states -- often missing where else in the
tree those changes happened, often defining only one of the states, and
so on. That's a fairly explicit way of presenting a phylogenetic
hypothesis, definitely much better than what was done before, but still
not a way to _test_ phylogenetic hypotheses with any precision.