Search Results

Dieter Schlee

1973) for the new standards of this methodology. The taxonomist working on recent organisms will be primarily concerned with numerical phenetics. This central element of numerical taxonomy is discussed here for its taxonom- ically important claims (pretended objective taxonomic procedure in contrast to

Dieter Schlee

theory and practice. Therefore, in all these aspects it is inferior to Hennig's phylogenetic systematics, which seem to have been misunderstood and misinterpreted by Sneath and Sokal, apparently due to lack of sufficient information about the present state of this methodology. introduction With the new

Nils Møller Andersen

principles of the 'konsequent- phylogenetische oder cladistischen Systematik', being Willi Hennig's phylogenetic systematics as interpreted and modified by Peter Ax. The methodological procedures recommended by this school of systematics is controversial, however, and call for a broader discussion of current

SYSTEMATICS AND BIOGEOGRAPHY OF THE AUSTRAL BIOTA Ninth Meeting of the Willi Hennig Society The ninth meeting of the Willi Hennig Society will take place in Canberra, Australia, August 24-27, 1990. The invited and contributed papers will be a mix of theory, methodology and practice with the

Jyrki Mouna

. The analysis is well done and clearly reflects the author's extensive knowledge of the subject. On the subject of the chosen methodology, the author states: "Rather, I have started from the premise that cladistic analysis using parsimony is the appropriate ap- proach, because I regard this to be a

Robert R. Sokal

presented in Sneath and Sokal (1973). By contrast with the early days of numerical :axonomy, I am disinclined to reply to each and -very criticism of its philosophy and methodology, Jre.ferring to let the record of the employment of :axometrics speak for itself. However, at the in- vitation of the editor

N.P. Kristensen

's arguments for his decisions; the analysis will therefore undoubtedly prove stimulating for attempts of further refinement. The pleasantly undogmatic style of the cladistic analysis/ classification chapters is worth noting. The author's methodological openmindedness is clearly displayed in chapter five: "The

Michiel Ijssen and Lars Krogmann

methodological preferences. Our sole 2 L. Krogmann and M.S. Th ijssen / Insect Systematics & Evolution 40 (2009) 1–2 criteria are scientifi c excellence and broad international signifi cance. We hope these criteria make sure that Insect Systematics & Evolution remains attractive for both readers and authors

Gordon Bennett, Richard Lapoint and Patrick O'Grady

(2008) paper is based on three main points: (1) issues with supertree methods in general, (2) issues with the specific methodology employed by van der Linde and Houle, and (3) their approach of using of supertree data as the basis of taxonomic and nomenclatural revisions. Supertrees vs. supermatrices

Ole Karsholt and Niels P. Kristensen

a high international level compar- able to that of one century ago. Then follow sections on methodologies. An account is here given of the data-capture protocols on which the mapping project has been based, including the measures taken to obviate potential sources of errors (of which acceptance of