Taxacom: On describing new taxa without using phylogenetics: some suggestions

[Kirk Fitzhugh]

Marko Mutanen,

Given that our intent with phylogenetic inferences is to causally account
for observed homologous characters, and this occurs via the non-deductive
form of reasoning known as abduction, there are no logical arguments
supporting the view that sequence data has some priority over other classes
of characters. Homoplasy is an ad hoc hypothesis that is the product of
inferring hypotheses, so it can't be used as an excuse to exclude
morphological characters (indeed, one can just as easily argue that
sequence data are just as prone to lead to hypotheses of homoplasy). The
only rational approach to abductively inferring phylogenetic hypotheses is
to abide by the requirement of total evidence (sensu Carnap 1950) and
consider all relevant observed characters.

Kirk Fitzhugh

On Wed, Oct 8, 2025 at 12:02 PM Marko Mutanen via Taxacom <
taxacom at lists.ku.edu> wrote:

> Dear Robert, all, I agree with you. Morphological evolution is indeed
> fascinating, but it should be studied in the context of DNA-based
> phylogenies rather than by continuing to infer evolutionary relationships
> solely from morphology, which is
> 
>
> Dear Robert, all,
>
> I agree with you. Morphological evolution is indeed fascinating, but it should be studied in the context of DNA-based phylogenies rather than by continuing to infer evolutionary relationships solely from morphology, which is highly prone to homoplasy. Of course, when dealing with fossils, we must still rely on morphological data, but this inevitably introduces substantial uncertainty into the taxonomy of extinct taxa - likely persisting indefinitely.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Marko M.
>
>