AN EVALUATION OF CLADISTIC AND CHARACTER ANALYSES AS HYPOTHETICO-DEDUCTIVE PROCEDURES, AND THE CONSEQUENCES FOR CHARACTER WEIGHTING

Although phylogenetic analysis based on synapomorphies is said to comply better with the hypothetico-deductive methodology advocated by Popper and other philosophers of science than other approaches to phylogenetic reconstruction, the role of parsimony in cladistic analysis is not consistent with that of the hypothetico-deductive method. Parsimony evaluates the form of a hypothesis but cannot decide on the relative support for hypotheses. Cladistic analysis is not a hypothetico-deductive procedure for testing hypotheses; it is an inductive procedure that summarizes the information from character analysis (the synapomorphies) and not a separate level in the hierarchy of deductively testable hypotheses of phylogenetic analysis. Synapomorphies are not hypothetico-deductive tests of cladistic hypotheses. In contrast, the testing of hypotheses of synapomorphy during character analysis appears to conform to hypo- thetico-deductive principles. Thus, hypotheses of relationship can be tested deductively only during character analysis. The use of parsimony to inductively generate cladograms is justified but it is unclear which of various procedures based on parsimony is the most appropriate. Because incongruence among synapomorphies can be resolved only by character analysis, emphasis should be placed on the most testable characters as in Neff's (1986) a priori method of character weighting that is based on testing and corroboration. (Character analysis; character weighting;

[1]  J. Beatty.  Classes and Cladists , 1982 .

[2]  J. Farris.  A Successive Approximations Approach to Character Weighting , 1969 .

[3]  Niles Eldredge,et al.  Phylogenetic Patterns and the Evolutionary Process: Method and Theory in Comparative Biology , 1981 .

[4]  T. Stuessy,et al.  Determining Primitive Character States for Phylogenetic Reconstruction , 1980 .

[5]  J. Farris,et al.  Quantitative Phyletics and the Evolution of Anurans , 1969 .

[6]  M. Goodman,et al.  Amino Acid Sequence Evidence on the Phylogeny of Primates and Other Eutherians , 1982 .

[7]  Rom Harré,et al.  The Philosophies of Science: An Introductory Survey. , 1972 .

[8]  J. Farris.  Methods for Computing Wagner Trees , 1970 .

[9]  R. Sokal,et al.  A METHOD FOR DEDUCING BRANCHING SEQUENCES IN PHYLOGENY , 1965 .

[10]  Gerrell M. Drawhorn,et al.  Evolution and Diversification of the Archonta in an Arboreal Milieu , 1980 .

[11]  W. Salmon.  The foundations of scientific inference , 1967 .

[12]  Karl R. Popper.  The Logic of Scientific Discovery. , 1977 .

[13]  Henry Kyburg.  The Deductive Model: Does It Have Instances? , 1983 .

[14]  Q. Wheeler.  Character Weighting and Cladistic Analysis , 1986 .

[15]  J. Edwards,et al.  The Methodology of Phylogenetic Inference Above the Species Level , 1977 .

[16]  D. Kitts,et al.  Karl Popper, Verifiability, and Systematic Zoology , 1977 .

[17]  C. Hempel.  Philosophy of Natural Science , 1966 .

[18]  J. Edwards,et al.  The Determination of Parallel or Monophyletic Relationships: The Proteid Salamanders-A Test Case , 1976, The American Naturalist.

[19]  R. Harré.  The philosophies of science , 1985 .

[20]  J. Felsenstein.  10. The Statistical Approach to Inferring Evolutionary Trees and What It Tells Us About Parsimony and Compatibility , 1984 .

[21]  E. S. Gaffney,et al.  An Introduction to the Logic of Phylogeny Reconstruction , 1979 .

[22]  G. Estabrook,et al.  An Application of Compatibility Analysis to the Blackiths' Data on Orthopteroid Insects , 1977 .

[23]  Joel Cracraft,et al.  The Use of Functional and Adaptive Criteria in Phylogenetic Systematics , 1981 .

[24]  Gareth Nelson,et al.  Systematics and Biogeography: Cladistics and Vicariance , 1981 .

[25]  P. Gingerich.  Primate evolution: Evidence from the fossil record, comparative morphology, and molecular biology , 1984 .

[26]  E. Wiley,et al.  The Place of Ancestor-Descendant Relationships in Phylogeny Reconstruction , 1977 .

[27]  Thomas Kemp.  Haemothermia or Archosauria? The interrelationships of mammals, birds and crocodiles , 1988 .

[28]  G. Nelson.  Classification and Prediction: A Reply to Kitts , 1978 .

[29]  J. G. Strauch.  Use of Homoplastic Characters in Compatibility Analysis , 1984 .

[30]  W. H. Wagner,et al.  Origin and Philosophy of the Groundplan-divergence Method of Cladistics , 1980 .

[31]  E. S. Gaffney,et al.  A phylogeny and classification of the higher categories of turtles , 1975 .

[32]  C. W. Harper,et al.  Phylogenetic and Cladistic Hypotheses: A Debate , 1978 .

[33]  J. Felsenstein.  Cases in which Parsimony or Compatibility Methods will be Positively Misleading , 1978 .

[34]  E. Wiley,et al.  Karl R. Popper, Systematics, and Classification: A Reply to Walter Bock and Other Evolutionary Taxonomists , 1975 .

[35]  J. Farris.  Phylogenetic Analysis Under Dollo's Law , 1977 .

[36]  G. Estabrook,et al.  An idealized concept of the true cladistic character , 1975 .

[37]  Nancy A. Neff,et al.  A Rational Basis for a Priori Character Weighting , 1986 .

[38]  Ernst Mayr,et al.  Principles of systematic zoology , 1969 .

[39]  Nelson Goodman.  Recent Developments in the Theory of Simplicity , 1959 .

[40]  Walter J. Bock,et al.  Philosophical Foundations of Classical Evolutionary Classification , 1973 .

[41]  T. Kuhn.  The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. , 1964 .