Premium
A plea for ‘genealogical thinking’ in comparative biology – a rebuttal to the reply of Szucsich, Wirkner, and Pass to my article ‘Deconstructing Morphology’
Author(s) -
Scholtz Gerhard
Publication year - 2013
Publication title -
acta zoologica
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.414
H-Index - 37
eISSN - 1463-6395
pISSN - 0001-7272
DOI - 10.1111/j.1463-6395.2011.00545.x
Subject(s) - rebuttal , plea , character (mathematics) , cladistics , biology , morphology (biology) , premise , homology (biology) , comparative biology , epistemology , similarity (geometry) , cladogram , zoology , evolutionary biology , genetics , phylogenetics , philosophy , artificial intelligence , computer science , mathematics , history , law , archaeology , geometry , political science , gene , image (mathematics)
Scholtz G. in press. A plea for ‘genealogical thinking’ in comparative biology – a rebuttal to the reply of Szucsich, Wirkner, and Pass to my article ‘Deconstructing Morphology’. — Acta Zoologica (Stockholm) 00 : 1–4. Szucsich et al. (in press) claim that – in contrast to my statement – morphological thinking has to be ‘cladistic.’ Based on this premise, they stress the difference between the relationships among states of characters versus those among structures assigned to the same character state as implemented in numerical cladistic reasoning. SEA claim that my approach to the homology concept only deals with the problem of the integration of various character states into the same character, whereas the necessary relationships among structures assigned to the same state are not covered. Based on this distinction, SEA also criticise the application of similarity in my definition of homology. Furthermore, they address the issue of evolutionarily independent units.