[Recent rhinos do not lack character(s): neither do fossil rhinos!]

Concepts, methods, and interest of phylogenetic reconstruction are briefly examined. As large data sets are considered and refutable results are proposed, there is no need to use the argument of authority concerning relationships between taxons. Cladistic analysis in vertebrate palaeontology has gained considerable strength in the last decade, based on sets of hundreds of anatomical characters. One example is selected, which concerns the rhino family, i.e. rhinocerotids. Although underrepresented in recent times, these perissodactyl mammals flourished throughout the Cenozoicera (4 recent genera vs. 50 fossil genera). The main results of a recent cladistic analysis of elasmotheriine rhinocerotids, based on 282 anatomical characters, are listed. Such results concern phylogenetics (monophyly of both elasmotheriines and recent rhinos; branching of elasmotheriines among rhinocerotids) and methodology (definition of a "branching group"; location and processing of homoplasy; influence of taxonomic sampling). The implications are both biostratigraphical and palaeobiogeographical (evolution of the diet and spatial distribution; intercontinental dispersals; ghost lineages and heuristic use of the phylogenetic tree). Finally, forthcoming developments of the available data set for rhinocerotids are examined: controversial phylogenetic relationships among recent rhinos will be refined (thanks to close extinct taxa) and an exhaustive phylogeny of fossil and recent rhinocerotids will be reconstructed (54 genera).