Recycled
- PMID: 34929917
- DOI: 10.1111/j.1096-0031.1998.tb00342.x
Recycled
Abstract
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.
References
-
- Deleporte, P. (1996). Three-taxon statements and phylogeny construction. Cladistics 12, 273-289.
-
- Farris, J. S. (1979). The information content of the phylogenetic system. Syst. Zool. 28, 483-519.
-
- Farris, J. S. (1983). The logical basis of phylogenetic analysis. In “Advances in Cladistics” (N. I. Platnick and V. A. Funk, Eds), Vol. 2, pp. 7-36. Columbia University Press, New York .
-
- Farris, J. S. (1997). Cycles. Cladistics 13, 131-144.
-
- Farris, J. S., Kallersjö, M., Albert, V. A., Allard, M., Anderberg, A., Bowditch, B., Bult, C, Carpenter, J. M., Crowe, T. M., De Laet, J., Fitzhugh, K., Frost, D., Goloboff, P., Humphries, C. J., Jondelius, U., Judd, D., Karis, P. O., Lipscomb, D., Luckow, M., Mindell, D., Muona, J., Nixon, K., Presch, W., Seberg, O., Siddall, M. E., Struwe, L., Tehler, A., Wenzel, J., Wheeler, Q., and Wheeler, W. (1995). Explanation. Cladistics 11, 211-218.
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources