[Taxacom] FW: cladistic analysis for morphologicalcharacters -- UPGMA is not cladistics

Richard Zander Richard.Zander at mobot.org
Sat Nov 17 11:56:16 CST 2012

Why is there a problem with this? MY deduction is single--the result is
wrong, incorrect, faulty, pick any one. The premises are multiple, that
is, including various gimmicky phylogenetic assumptions. I do not
support phylogenetic results as deductions, simple or multiple, or
apropos as inferences on evolution. 

Richard H. Zander
Missouri Botanical Garden, PO Box 299, St. Louis, MO 63166-0299 USA  
Web sites: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/ and
Modern Evolutionary Systematics Web site:
UPS and FedExpr -  MBG, 4344 Shaw Blvd, St. Louis 63110 USA

-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
[mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Kirk Fitzhugh
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 11:51 AM
To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] FW: cladistic analysis for
morphologicalcharacters -- UPGMA is not cladistics

For valid deduction, that necessary conclusion can only be singular;
multiple, mutually exclusive conclusions aren't possible. The rules of
deduction are stipulated in any logic textbook and readily preclude
characterizing phylogenetic inference as deductive.


More information about the Taxacom mailing list