[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
http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/bfna/bfnamenu.htm
Modern Evolutionary Systematics Web site:
http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/21EvSy.htm
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.

Kirk




More information about the Taxacom mailing list