Premium
Parsimony with and without Scientific Justification
Author(s) -
Kluge Arnold G.
Publication year - 2001
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.1096-0031.2001.tb00117.x
Subject(s) - cladogram , cladistics , explication , character (mathematics) , explanatory power , phylogenetic tree , congruence (geometry) , evolutionary biology , epistemology , taxon , mathematics , biology , philosophy , paleontology , biochemistry , geometry , gene
Brower's (2000, Cladistics 16, 143–154) pursuit of a nonevolutionary cladistics, like those of others (e.g., Scotland, 2000, Syst. Biol. 49, 480–500), fails for lack of a scientific justification. His operational explication of parsimony does not necessarily rule out the use of other criteria on which to base the identification of a hierarchical branching pattern, nor does he give a compelling reason for why just that one kind of pattern is sought. In the absence of evolutionary theory, such as the descent of species, and the modification of character states, one from another, there is no scientific reason to seek congruence among character hierarchies whose origins, functions, and fates are not necessarily the same. Brower's operational parsimony is no substitute for phylogenetic parsimony, where requirements for ad hoc hypotheses of homoplasy are justifiably minimized, assuming only “descent, with modification.” In addition to maximizing explanatory power, that most parsimonious cladogram is the least disconfirmed, most highly corroborated, hypothesis.