Paleobotany in cladistics and cladistics in paleobotany: enlightenment and uncertainty

Abstract

Data on fossil taxa can, and should, be incorporated into cladistic analyses. Potential problems with such analyses include large amounts of missing data, and uncertainty about homology of parts that are present. Ambiguity of character data may also occur with extant taxa, but rarely to the extent that it occurs in fossil data. Such ambiguity reduces the strength of the test of character congruence among taxa, in effect relaxing the criterion of parsimony. In order to minimize such effects, composite fossil taxa should be avoided when possible, and polymorphisms reduced by breaking terminals into monomorphic subunits. When results including fossils differ radically from those that exclude fossils, such differences should be approached with caution, keeping in mind the reduced strength of the parsimony analysis when large numbers of cells in a matrix are scored as ambiguous. At this point, there is no simple way to compare the “strength” of parsimony between two data sets that have different numbers of characters and/or taxa in relation to missing data. However, methods under development may provide ways to incorporate the effect of missing values into relative measures of group support such as Bremer support, character removal, and the bootstrap.