The scientific status of metazoan cladistics: why current research practice must change

Abstract

Jenner, R. A. (2004). The scientific status of metazoan cladistics: why current research practice must change. —Zoologica Scripta, 33, 293–310.Metazoan phylogenetics is bustling with activity. The use of comprehensive morphological data sets in recent phylogenetic analyses of the Metazoa indicates that morphological evidence continues to play a key role in the reconstruction of metazoan deep history. In this paper I review the scientific status of morphological metazoan cladistics from the perspective of cladistic research cycles. Each research cycle consists of three main steps: (1) the compilation of a data matrix (2) the simultaneous evaluation of all possible cladograms in a character congruence test, and (3) the assessment of the relationship between evidence and hypothesis after finding the optimal tree. I identify a striking discrepancy between the sophistication of the analysis of given data sets (Step 2), and their compilation and the interpretation of the results (Steps 1 and 3). The latter two steps deserve far greater attention than is current practice. Uncritical and nonexplicit character selection, character coding, and character scoring seriously compromise Step 1. Careful comparative morphological study prior to data matrix construction is necessary to remedy this problem in future cladistic analyses. Step 2 is the locus of most recent advances in metazoan cladistics through the increasing availability of computing power, and the development of increasingly efficient phylogenetic software that allows analysis of large data sets. Failure to identify problems and errors generated in Step 1 of the research cycle is testament to the general failure of Step 3. Consequently, recent progress in metazoan cladistics is primarily analytical, while the only empirical anchor of the discipline receives surprisingly little attention. Not surprisingly, the first generation of modern metazoan phylogeneticists used computers principally as a relatively quick and easy means to generate abundant phylogenies from morphological data. The next phase should build on this foundation by critically testing these alternative hypotheses by a thorough qualitative reassessment and elaboration of morphological data matrices, and a more critical approach to data selection. A rigorous research program for metazoan cladistics can only be established when the cladistic research cycle is properly completed, and when subsequent research cycles are effectively linked to previous efforts.