Problematic issues of cladistics: 24. Shoehorning, and the logic of absolute and relative phylogenetic relationship
Both, evolutionary systematics and phylogenetic systematics (cladistics) have claimed that phylogenetic relationship is analogous to genealogy. This sentence is meaningless. It requires first of all that in genealogy and in phylogenetics three kinds of relationship are distinguished: general, absolute and relative. Genealogy works with the absolute relationships among well-defined individuals. Shoehorning and evolutionary systematics try to clarify absolute degrees of relationship among taxonomic groups whose delimitation requires conventions. These methods also require complete descriptions of forms and measurements of their differences which incurs typological pitfalls. Cladistics, on the other hand works only with differences of character states and relative phylogenetic relationship. The background of HENNIG's phylogenetic systematics is represented by three relativistic principles: relativity of character state, relativity of phylogenetic relationship and relativity of (position and rank) of taxa.
No Reference information available - sign in for access.
No Citation information available - sign in for access.
No Supplementary Data.
No Article Media
Document Type: Research Article
Publication date: 2007-11-01
More about this publication?
- Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie continuously publishes current original contributions from all fields of geology, ever since its foundation in 1807. All published contributions are in the English language.
- Editorial Board
- Information for Authors
- Subscribe to this Title
- Ingenta Connect is not responsible for the content or availability of external websites