[Taxacom] cladistics (was: clique analysis in textbooks)

[Kenneth Kinman]

Dear All,
      Gee, I am a fan of cladistic analysis (if done correctly), but I
never thought that ANY form of cladistics was "necessarily" correct (but
a lot that seemed better than John's, although admittedly I have seen
some that were worse, even at higher taxonomic levels, and thus more
detrimental and regretably sometimes accepted by far too many).           
       As for some people having used "refuted" as a synonym of
"rejected", whoever they might be, I really doubt that they are
restricted to users of US language (as opposed to English language as a
whole or even other languages).  In any case, I predict an exclusive
orangutan-hominid clade will continue to be both refuted and rejected.
It has very clearly been "rejected" by the vast majority, but a small
minority still insists that it has not been "refuted".  Anyway, I'm not
going to lose any sleep over that one, but I am admittedly still
bothered by the question of whether chimps clade exclusively with
gorillas or with hominids.  Hopefully we will see some more informative
papers on that subject in the near future.     
      ------a user of "US language",
                           Ken Kinman                    
--------------------------------------------------------
John Grehan wrote:
     Yes I am asserting that 'my' form of cladistics is necessarily
correct - or at least more correct or better than some others. And I
realize that I am sticking my neck out on that and perhaps setting
myself up for a fall - in which case the orangutan evidence will not
doubt be refuted (and I am not using that term as a synonym of rejected
as often occurs in US language).