Related Concept Videos
Evolutionary Relationships through Genome Comparisons
Phylogenetic Trees
Phylogeny
Modern Molecular Taxonomy
Applications of Molecular Taxonomy
The Tree of Life - Bacteria, Archaea, Eukaryotes
You might also read
Related Articles
Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.
ONTOGENY AND PHYLOGENETIC SYSTEMATICS.
AMNIOTE PHYLOGENY AND THE IMPORTANCE OF FOSSILS.
Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 9, 2025

Using Phylogenetic Analysis to Investigate Eukaryotic Gene Origin
Published on: August 14, 2018
CLADISTICS: WHAT'S IN A WORD?
1Museum of Zoology and Department of Biology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109, U.S.A.
Cladistics is evolving with new data and methods, but consensus methods like taxonomic congruence are criticized. The total evidence approach is preferred, and resampling techniques like bootstrapping are questioned for phylogenetic inference.
Area of Science:
- Evolutionary biology
- Systematics
- Phylogenetic inference
Background:
- Cladistics has advanced with new data and methods, increasing the relevance of cladograms for historical inquiries.
- Review of consensus hypotheses in phylogenetic inference highlights criticisms and justifications.
Purpose of the Study:
- To review criticisms and justifications of consensus hypotheses in phylogenetic inference.
- To evaluate the merits of taxonomic congruence versus the total evidence approach.
- To question the validity of suboptimal cladograms and character mapping protocols.
Main Methods:
- Critical review of existing literature on cladistics and phylogenetic inference.
- Analysis of consensus methods, including taxonomic congruence and total evidence approach.
Main Results:
- Strong arguments against taxonomic congruence as a consensus-building method.
- The total evidence approach is presented as a less burdened alternative.
- Concerns raised regarding the preference for suboptimal cladograms and specific character mapping protocols.
- Bootstrap and jackknife resampling techniques are questioned due to violated assumptions and sensitivity to character frequencies.
Conclusions:
- Current redefinitions of cladistics may contradict foundational principles that established its prominence.
- The total evidence approach and critical evaluation of methods are crucial for robust phylogenetic inference.

