Premium
Recycled
Author(s) -
Siebert Darrell J,
Williams David M
Publication year - 1998
Publication title -
cladistics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.323
H-Index - 92
eISSN - 1096-0031
pISSN - 0748-3007
DOI - 10.1111/j.1096-0031.1998.tb00342.x
Subject(s) - cladistics , taxon , criticism , computer science , epistemology , biology , philosophy , paleontology , law , phylogenetic tree , political science , biochemistry , gene
Both three‐taxon analysis (3ta) and conventional parsimony analysis (CPA) fall within the cladistic framework. Attempts to exclude 3ta from the general cladistic framework so far seem to amount to declaring CPA as the only permissible analytic technique within cladistics. Critics of 3ta have failed to fully implement it in examples; as a result this criticism is faulty and does not support the claims made. Ultimately, the relative merit of 3ta will be resolved empirically, by comparison of classifications produced from it with classifications using other methods.