Abstract
The larger issues concerning the relative merits of phenetics and cladistics as philosophies of classification have already been taken up by the major lecturers of this morning’s session. I would briefly like to add my own, personal, and probably quite idiosyncratic views of the continuing contest of ideas and methodologies.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Beatty, J. 1982. Classes and cladists. Syst. Zool. 31: 25–34.
Eldredge, N. and J. Cracraft. 1980. Phylogenetic patterns and the evolutionary process. Columbia University Press, New York. 349 pp.
Nelson, G. 1979. Cladistic analysis and synthesis: Principles and definitions with a historical note on Adanson’s Familles des Plantes (1763–1764). Syst. Zool. 28: 1–21.
Rohlf, F. J. and Sokal, R. R. 1981. Comparing numerical taxonomic studies. Syst. Zool. 30: 459–490.
Sokal, R. R. 1982. A phylogenetic analysis of the Caminalcules (in preparation).
Wiley, E. O. 1981. Phylogenetics. John Wiley and Sons, New York. 439 pp.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1983 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Sokal, R.R. (1983). The Phenetics-Cladistics Controversy: A Personal View. In: Felsenstein, J. (eds) Numerical Taxonomy. NATO ASI Series, vol 1. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-69024-2_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-69024-2_4
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-69026-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-69024-2
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive