TY - JOUR
AU - Nelson, Gareth
AB - 1989 REVIEWS In places the logic of proposed arguments is flawed. views the subject from the standpoint of likelihood and Bayesian probability theory. Much of the book For example, Compagno cites a study by Baranes and is devoted to analysis of the 15-year dispute between Shahrabany-Baranes (1986) who proposed a phylo- genetic hypothesis for carcharhinoid sharks based on Joe Felsenstein and Steve Farris. Sober's account, a phenetic cluster analysis of morphometric and me- however, is not intended as derivative commentary, ristic measurements. Compagno disagrees with the but rather as original synthesis exposing flaws in the arguments of the antagonists and charting a course conclusion of these authors that Triaenodon and Ne- toward future progress at higher levels of discourse. gaprion should be excluded from the Carcharinidae and included with the Hemigalidae, because he has His vision of likelihood puts it at odds with hy- synapomorphic evidence to the contrary. He goes on pothetico-deductivism. He asserts that phylogenetic to suggest that the morphometric resemblances be- inference is a problem of likelihood, not deduction. tween Triaenodon, Negaprion and the Hemigalidae are For likelihood, he argues that a model specifying probably indicative of evolutionary convergence in probabilities of character change, or probabilities 
TI - Reconstructing the Past: Parsimony, Evolution, and Inference
JF - Systematic Biology
DO - 10.2307/2992293
DA - 1989-09-01
UR - https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/oxford-university-press/reconstructing-the-past-parsimony-evolution-and-inference-gS7soh55cG
SP - 293
EP - 294
VL - 38
IS - 3
DP - DeepDyve
ER -