TY - JOUR
AU - Humphries, C. J.
AB -  Introduction Ever since Hcnnig (1950, 1966) clarified that common descent implies similarity but t h a t the converse is false, classifications based upon synapomorphy schemes have become witicspreatl in bio . However, in recent years considerable confusion has arisen as to what constitutes t onnection between evolution and systematics. T h e confusion has Iiccorne manifest in a series ofdebates, such as phenetics versus cladistics, compatibility or maximum likelihood methods versus parsimony methods, transformed versus nontransformed cladistics and outgroups versus ontogenies as the basis for determining character polarities (e.g. Farris, 1985). T h e reason for such debates sometimes has concerned the clarification of theoretical principles but has more often been d u e to a defence of‘critrenched positions in the light of advances clarifying empirical procedures. nstitutcs theory in ‘ l h c principal efIccts of‘ such arguments impinge upon what , tcrnatics and, consequently, how this a k t s methods of analy Saethcr [ 1986), for cxample, is amongst those who claim to undertake methods prescribed by Hennig but derides those who use the h’agncr algorithm, and a variety of other computcrizcd methods, as having deviated from the principles ofphylogenetic methods. Indeed, he gocs 
TI - CLADISTICS AND COMPUTERS: A CHIRONOMID CONUNDRUM?
JF - Cladistics
DO - 10.1111/j.1096-0031.1988.tb00469.x
DA - 1988-03-01
UR - https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/wiley/cladistics-and-computers-a-chironomid-conundrum-W1EZ0NeAsO
SP - 72
VL - 4
IS - 1
DP - DeepDyve
ER -