From Haeckel’s phylogenetics and Hennig’s cladistics to the method of maximum likelihood: Advantages and limitations of modern and traditional approaches to phylogeny reconstruction

Abstract

The maximum likelihood and Bayesian methods are based on parametric models of character evolution. They assume that if we know these models as well as distribution of character states in studied organisms, we can infer the probability of different phylogenetic trajectories leading from ancestors to modern forms. In fact, these methods are mathematized variants of the traditional Haeckel’s approach to phylogeny reconstruction. In contrast to classical and parsimonious cladistics, they infer phylogenies without such limitations as necessity of strictly dichotomous evolution, exclusion of plesiomorphic characters, and acceptance of only holophyletic taxa. They assume that evolution may be reticulated, any homologous characters—both apomorphic and plesiomorphic—can be used for inferring phylogenies, and interpretation of evolutionary lineages as taxa is optional. Thus, the main difference between the new and more traditional approaches to phylogeny reconstruction lies not in the characters used (molecular or morphological) but in the methodology of analysis. It must be admitted that a revolution began in phylogenetics 10–20 years ago. However, the fundamental changes in phylogenetics have been carried out so calmly and neatly by the people who started this revolution, that many systematists still do not realize their importance.