Re Critique

[R. Zander]

I've gotten some reprint requests for the article

Zander, R. H. 1998. Phylogenetic reconstruction: a critique.
Taxon 47: 681-693.

in response to a mention on TAXACOM. I do have reprints
available; let me know of your interest at bryo at paradox.net.

Essentially I argue that optimality criteria are
inappropriate for reconstructing historical phenomena.
Contrary to the case with classification, where any
reasonable tree is sufficiently predictive to be acceptable
for classification purposes, probabilistic reconstruction
requires an absence of reasonable alternative hypotheses.
Aside from obvious "accepted classifications," only Bremer
support in the case of parsimony and high posterior
probability in the case of maximum likelihood analyses fit
this criterion. For problematic groups that might profit
from phylogenetic analysis, the only reported Bremer support
or high posterior probability is for one or a few subclades
(as opposed to support for the full cladogram) in the
literature. An estimated minimum total of $75 million has
been spent over the past 10-15 years by NSF in support of
phylogenetic analysis by optimality criteria, with little
gain. Do we really need to divert nearly $10 million a year
from fundamental research into biological diversity, given
the present crisis, on highly precise but improbable
phylogenetic reconstructions?

R. Zander
--


Richard H. Zander, Curator of Botany
Buffalo Museum of Science
1020 Humboldt Pkwy, Buffalo, NY 14211 USA
bryo at paradox.net   voice: 716-896-5200 ext. 351