revolution

Tom DiBenedetto tdib at UMICH.EDU
Thu Oct 3 10:37:13 CDT 1996


On Thu, 3 Oct 1996 10:43:47 -0500, Richard Jensen wrote:

>Mike Harvey is, of course, right.  Cladistics does not require
>transformation series and cladistics does not equate SIMILARITY with
>RELATEDNESS.  Phenetics also does not equate similarity with relatedness
>(i.e., evolutionary relatedness).

Cladistics use *derived similarity* as indicative of relationship, as
opposed to any old similarity.

>Interestingly, many cladistics _seem_ to equate relatedness with
>similarity.  For example, if I am searching for organisms that have a
>certain property, then the best way to start is to consult a phylogenetic
>classification.  The assumption is that those organisms that are closely
>related evolutionarily are more likely to share the property in
>question.  So, if I know of one organism that has the property in
>question, I should examine close relatives to find others.  It may be a
>generally successful approach, but not in any way guaranteed to be
>successful.

so you want guarantees???  :)

---------------------------------------------
Tom DiBenedetto
Fish Division
Museum of Zoology
University of Michigan




More information about the Taxacom mailing list